Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 16 April 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Mocambique

[edit]
Mocambique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My apology, thought this was a forgotten stub. Confused the town Mocambique with the country Mozambique. However, maybe the name can be changed as confusion may arise. The country Mozambique is sometimes spelt Moçambique. JMK 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, will protect. NawlinWiki 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slothism

[edit]
Slothism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax article, previously prodded and deleted, speedied per A1, and recreated again this time. Author removed prod, so I am bringing here for consensus Neil916 (Talk) 00:22, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic car concept

[edit]
Demonic car concept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear WP:NOR - article is trying to create a new definition of a "concept" used in films. A concept which isn't notable enough to write an article about - Googling "Demonic car concept" gives zero results (not including copies of this article). Apart from that, the notable vehicles and films are already listed in Phantom vehicle. Saikokira 00:14, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gimmicks in television shows

[edit]
List of gimmicks in television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Heavy on the OR. WP:NOT Indiscriminate Information. And subjective inclusion criteria. Some editors attempting to create their own definition for "gimmicks in television shows"... and then trying to apply their definition to some TV shows. Saikokira 00:27, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of short stories that appeared in the New Yorker in 2005

[edit]
List of short stories that appeared in the New Yorker in 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an index of short stories in the New Yorker. Nearly all of them are redlinks anyway Saikokira 00:41, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 00:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Combine

[edit]
Star Wars Combine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails web notability guidelines, reliable sources guidelines -- It is not notable and doesn't cite sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, you can't assert sources through personal knowledge. While that may allow you to know things, the rest of Wikipedia can't rely on you being who you say you are. Now you can certainly use that knowledge to know where to look for sources, in which case I'll change my opinion, so good luck! FrozenPurpleCube 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI He is who he says he is But you have to remember there isnt a lot of sites that even mention Browser based games much less reviews which is why it is hard to find third party sites regarding it. WillSWC 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not according to WP:V. The first one is a bare general information list on one of the thousands of game rating webpages, where the "Review" and "Rating" boxes are blank. The second is the same, likewise with a blank Rating box, where the last update was nearly two years ago. The third is likewise two year old ad copy, with the Recent Review box blank. The fourth is a one paragraph ad copy, with a review of "growing game... and its going good. i wil advice u to take this game." The final one is a series of meeting reports from a Berlin game designers' club, at which one meeting in March 2006 discussed this game. These sources are not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Anything from the mainstream media? Anything in a book? Anything in Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC Gaming or the like?  RGTraynor  23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly urge you to read the relevant policies governing sources at WP:V and WP:RS, which would clear up your questions. That being said:

  • "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

  • "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."

  • "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

Blogs, bulletin board reviews and podcasts are not published.  RGTraynor  16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well I'm not going to waste any more of my time argueing with you. Its obvious you don't understand that a Browser Based game rarely if ever warrants printed sources. Simply because somethings not in Game Informer doesnt mean its not worthey of an article. I am tired of perfectly good articles being removed. WillSWC 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether browser-based games warrant printed sources or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that Wikipedia articles are required to satisfy WP:V. If indeed the outside world takes little notice of most browser-based games, as seems to be the case here, then the obvious conclusion is that such games generally aren't noteworthy enough to merit Wikipedia articles.  RGTraynor  17:38, 19 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBBG

[edit]
PBBG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Classic WP:NEO. None of the sources provided are secondary sources independent of the community striving to coin the term. The article is open about this site proposing the term and its operator apparently created this article. This page, which promises "free advertising" to sites that use the PBBG term in their <title> tags and hints that registering "PBBG-related domain names" is a good idea, suggests that the Google test should be used with caution. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joking: can it be carried by birds? :) Nihiltres 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a whale of a tall tale. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 02:00Z

Iqaluit Whales

[edit]
Iqaluit Whales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a supposed National Hockey League team that won a Stanley Cup and is only three years old, but no indications to support this team actually exists (thus, this is a hoax). Contested prod. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 02:13Z

Stuck Family

[edit]
Stuck Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsourced, non-notable, vanity page. WP:NOT#MYSPACE ConfuciusOrnis 01:28, 17 April 2007 (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 in English. --Coredesat 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book names in Finnish

[edit]
Comic book names in Finnish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. There's little encyclopedic value to listing foreign language translations like this. What next? Simpsons characters in Portuguese? Steven Spielberg film titles in Greek? This would have a place on the Finnish Wikipedia, but not here. Saikokira 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if you want to know the name of a comic in Finnish, go to the article here and look at the interwikilink. This is the English language Wikipedia. Fram 09:47, 17 April 2007 (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 merge to The Larry Sanders Show. fishhead64 00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards won by The Larry Sanders Show

[edit]
List of awards won by The Larry Sanders Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ironically, should be called "List of awards lost by The Larry Sanders Show", and as such, the actual awards won (all 10 of them) should be included in the show's main article. This just seems to be an attempt to replicate the IMDb page for this. Great show though, should have won a lot more. Saikokira 00:55, 17 April 2007 (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 (marginal keep). fishhead64 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Side Dave

[edit]
East Side Dave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This biography has no sources and contains derogatory personal information - "...notable for his...notorious boasts, alcoholism, and outlandish claims". The subject is a non-notable radio show character/associate producer. Will Beback · † · 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability, no sources.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V, WP:BIO. For all the assertions, this fellow has only a hundred Ghits [1], which is a startlingly low total for a purported major radio personality. Just plain no evidence of notability.  Ravenswing  13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many statements were made on air on the XM program and are difficult to document, although they can be cited to be direct quotes from the broadcast, personally I've heard verification of all but the hot dog vendor background information. I have added some cites to the entry to confirm the most outlandish claims and more are forthcoming. Noderose 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm afraid that statements made on the air don't qualify as "independent" sources with proven fact-checking. If no reliable, independent, published sources are available, then this fellow just doesn't clear the verification and notability bars.  Ravenswing  17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO, not notable. Realkyhick 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the article needs major cleanup, and probably should be brought down to a paragraph or two (removing all the comedy bits and show humor). But he is a producer & on air talent of a notable radio show (XM & FreeFM). --Bill.matthews 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we find a source or two which establish that this person is notable? He's not a star of the show. -Will Beback · † · 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, he's not the star, but I would say he has a 'significant role' in the radio show, and even a 'a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.' (per [WP:BIO]] Special Cases: Entertainers) --Bill.matthews 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good. If he has a significant cult following then we should be able to document it. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want documentation, the closest I can think of off of the top of my head is one of the multitude of websites. I would list them but I'm not sure that that would be allowed. Suffice it to say that a Google search of either "Ron and Fez" or "Opie and Anthony" should produce more than enough results. There are three or four major websites devoted to the show, as well as five or six other minor/B-Level sites. If it would be allowed to name the websites for the purposes of research and confirmation, please let me know. DestradoZero 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As for confirmation of his cult following, if there was a way to find out how many people have Dave Identification Cards, that would probably suffice. It amounts to a fan club specifically for Dave. I don't know where you'd find out the number but fans often identify with their Dave ID Card number when calling the show. Noderose 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like just a guy doing his job. Just because his job is on the radio, doesn't make him notable. It does not look like he has done anything that a million other radio sidekicks have done. - BierHerr 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like certain radio shows, he is one of the on-air personalities as well as simply being a producer. He has been integral to quite a few of Ron and Fez's ongoing bits. If you listen to the show, you know who he is simply because he takes part in SO MUCH of the show. He isn't a sidekick/producer in the manner of the majority of radio talk shows. He should be kept because of his prominence within the show, without a doubt. DestradoZero 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Indrian 06:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • done anything that a million other radio sidekicks have done. - BierHerr 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DestradoZero --Whackbagger 20:38, 21 April 2007 (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. Wikipedia not being paper isn't really an argument to keep an article, and there has to be some other reason. I can't see any such reason being provided here. --Coredesat 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on The Flip Wilson Show

[edit]
List of guest stars on The Flip Wilson Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. This is a list of loosely associated people, the only association being that they all appeared on The Flip Wilson Show at some point in their lives. No context or information either, just names. This was previously nominated for deletion over a year ago and the result was no consensus, although opinion was 2:1 for deleting it. Saikokira 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused about the point Carlossuarez46 is trying to make. He is not arguing to keep this article because of the existence of these other articles. Rather, he is arguing that the result of this AfD ought to apply to these other similar lists, and that a failure to be consistent in this regard reflects badly on Wikipedia. I think it's a worthwhile point. --Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I can't figure for the life of me what Mr. Suarez said to provoke such a hostile reaction. I agree with the nomination, but I'm sure we can disagree in a civil manner.  RGTraynor  14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I placed his comments in italics, so it should have been clear what I found offensive. He suggested that deleting this article but keeping The Simpsons list would show that Wikipedia is "biased against African Americans". That is ridiculous and offensive, sorry if I sounded hostile for pointing it out. I try to be civil, but I have no patience for people who play the "race card". Also, if you look at Carlossuarez46's comments in other similar afds, his opinion on these lists is most definitely that they should be kept, so even though it might not be apparent that's what his intention is here, I have no reason to think his opinion has suddenly changed. Saikokira 02:54, 18 April 2007 (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 Withdrawn by nominator. EliminatorJR Talk 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure).[reply]

Infor Global Solutions

[edit]
Infor Global Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

CSD G11, but contested by User:Pdelongchamp Withdrawn. The rewrite of the article is good enough for now RogueNinjatalk 02:04, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 00:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrall road

[edit]
Thrall road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Road of micronotability. The small claims made are the only things which made me bring this here rather than prodding it - hopefully someone who knows the area will be able to confirm or deny the road's relevance in the grand scheme of things. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 17 April 2007 (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 (nomination withdrawn); article was totally rewritten after nomination. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 11:01Z

Captain Cutaneum

[edit]
Captain Cutaneum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is not notable, poorly written and unverefied. I tried to speedy it, but it was contested. I withdraw my nomination, as long as the article is not kept in the current garbage form. RogueNinjatalk 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would have speedied it as CSD A7. YechielMan 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy. I assumed it was some kind of hoax. I googled. He really does exist - he's some kind of public safety character in the Phoenix area, and he's played by a reputable dermatologist. We have reliable sources ([3] and [4], as well as [5] - don't know if a Publishers Weekly blog is a RS), but the article needs to be rewritten. But before I do it, does he pass - well, I'm not even sure what policy this would fall under. --Charlene 03:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 1 hit in Factiva hinted at notability and sure enough, Google confirmes it: [6], [7], [8], and [9] (same as the Factiva article) are all independent detailed write-ups of this cartoon character. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:30Z
Comment In that case, delete as advertisement RogueNinjatalk 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold on: I'm writing a new, NPOV, substantiated article based on Google results. The original article isn't an ad per se, though: it's just a bunch of very sensible skin care tips that don't really belong under this article heading. --Charlene 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable, then the solution to poorly written prose is to rewrite, not delete. I've stubbed the article to remove the tips, will add the references later because I need to go afk now. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:38Z
I'm rewriting it; no need to. By the way, he's mentioned not just in local newspapers but also as the sole subject of a major article in one of the world's most important dermatology journals. That's notable, so I vote Strong keep. --Charlene 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I'm new to this. Presidentlines 04:28, 17 April 2007 (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanocentrism

[edit]
Japanocentrism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. Works cited in the reference section are mostly on generic Japanese hitory and/or Japanese nationalism and none of them studies such a concept as "Japanocentrism." There are already articles on Japanese nationalism and Japanese fascism. --Saintjust 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a neologism/protologism, and as constituted might violate WP:SOAP. I also agree that the intended topic is covered through the established topics and articles Japanese nationalism and Nihonjinron. On the other hand, Bhumiya finds lots of holes in our coverage of topics, so I'd like to hear about why he created the article. It's remained mostly unchanged since he introduced it in 2005. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is not a protologism. I've found quite a few occurrences of it in books, such as ISBN 0415297907, which covers various aspects of Japanocentrism on pages 91, 123–124, and 193–195, for example. That, and the various scholarly papers on the subject, such as this, convince me that there is a proper documented concept here, that is linked in the literature to other concepts such as Mingei and sakoku. (ISBN 0521003628 discusses the Japanocentrism of the idea that the History of Japan has "an open/closed rhythm", in that it ignores the existence of similar phenomena in Korea and in China, on page 9, for example.) Whilst the article content strays from what is actually supported by the literature that I can find, that is a problem that can be solved by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, with the aforementioned sources (and others) in hand. Administrator intervention is not required. Keep. Uncle G 08:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory that you possibly found in google book search only describes the multicultural aspect of Japan's Oriental Orientalism (the very subject of the book) being "Janpanocentric" because while Oriental Orientalism embraces cultural diversity within the Orient it also assumes that the core culture of the Orient is Japanese. "Janpanocentric" here is just an expression the author used (like many other xxxx-centrism) and is not a fullfledged concept on its own, and naturally has got nothing to do with the content of this Wikipedia article. --Saintjust 09:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • False. It has quite a lot to do with the content of this article. For example: What the book says about Japanocentrism on page 91 covers much the same territory as is covered in the article's "Early forms" section. That you think that it's "just an expression that the author used" is belied by what the author xyrself thinks, which is clearly implied by xyr inclusion of Japanocentrism as a subject in the book's index. Uncle G 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are about 150 Google hits; perhaps I shouldn't have called it a protologism, though I'm still not convinced it isn't a neologism. The 2005 IJAS paper that you cite does use the term, but based on the abstract, the topic appears to be nihonjinron and its historiography. I'm still unconvinced that the article is on an independent topic. I did leave a note for Bhumiya, by the way. Dekimasuよ! 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I recognize that pages of this sort are somewhat subjective and difficult to assess, and while I can assure you that none of what I wrote is original research, much of it is scantly if not uniquely documented. I created this expecting that it would be heavily modified and probably provoke lots of argument, which is a good thing. My chief intention, in creating such a provisional page, was to separate the phenomenon of Japanese ethnic chauvinism from the discipline of Nihonjinron, which I would consider a different matter - related, but unambiguously different, just as, say Democracy in America is different from American exceptionalism. If we were to merge the contents of this page with Nihonjinron, I think it would simply reflect our negative response to Nihonjinron. And I suspect that if we delete this page, it will eventually have to be recreated, since it is undeniable that Japanocentrism exists, and that it is a more general concept than Nihonjinron. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the contents of this page were intended to be provisional. My main intention was simply to create an article for Japanocentrism that was separate from Nihonjinron. I am not a Japanese scholar, and was even less of one in 2005, so just about everything on the page is derivative from the sources, which seem sound. My main concern in this discussion is not to preserve my contributions to this page, but to preserve the essential distinction between Japanocentrism and Nihonjinron. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate article (Japanese nationalism maybe?). Mackan 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Japanese nationalism, on balance. I'm not a Japanese scholar but I support Dekimasu's assessment. For what it's worth, I don't consider this personal research, but considering the scope of our Japanese nationalism article, this page can only be seen as redundant. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:48, 20 April 2007 (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 per consensus. fishhead64 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
HAL 9000 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff article chock full of even the most fleeting references to the HAL 9000, the song "Daisy Bell," or even the name "Hal" being used in any vaguely science-y context for that matter. Chock full of speculation and OR, and a prime example of what what Wikipedia is not. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per Arctic.gnome. The article-subarticle-delete cycle is crazy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced. If articles stay unsourced and indiscriminate, then the only place for them is C:\My Documents or /home/user/mydocuments or what have you, not here. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 09:27Z
  • Merge to HAL 9000 --Dweller 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's leave aside the unsourced element, which is bad enough, but this article is crammed with speculation and assumptions, and as nom correctly points out the author/s have declared dozens of SF/media references as having to do with HAL9000 without a scrap of evidence being proffered. What's next, the original Cylons being cited because, well, they're hostile machine intelligences with red eyes?  RGTraynor  14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to back to HAL 9000. HAL 9000 itself exists only in popular culture, so a separate article about its appearances in popular culture is redundant. FWIW, the claim that many entries are "unreferenced" is also implausible. Most items simply describe allusions in other works, and are quite easily confirmed by consulting them. Entries like that are self-referencing and non-analytic; they need no further citations. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary and unsourced list.-- danntm T C 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid we can't quite have this article. Some of this stuff is a bit dubious at best. The rest can be kept at the main Hal 9000 article. Assuming it can be verified that is. FrozenPurpleCube 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge at least as a list. I strongly oppose "In popular culture" sections in articles. However, HAL 9000 itself is a part of popular culture and a pop icon of sorts, a section should be devoted to this.— JyriL talk 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is terrible. Not only is it totally unreferenced - which, in and of itself, is a reason for deletion per WP:ATT - but it's not even an encyclopedic article. I've brought this up again, and again - this is an encyclopedia not a list of trivia. If you are going to have an "in popular culture" article about a topic, it needs to about about the topic in popular culture - this means having sources. This means discussing the impact of the character on the popular culture, with references and examples. This does not means that we should take every single passing reference, throw away joke, mention, name that sounds like, random insertion and put it in an article. This is an encyclopedia not a list of places where something occurs. I mean, look at some of these: Kingdom of Loathing has a red eye item dropped by a robot creature? A computer controlled player has the name HAL 9001? A game mentions something being run by a computer called HAL 9000? Are these really non-trivial references to HAL 9000? If so, then why haven't we had the good sense to put them into an actual article, rather than an unsourced and ridiculous pile of trivia. These articles are the worst part of Wikipedia, and we need to clean them up post-haste. --Haemo
  • Delete. Isn't there a 2001: A Space Odyssey in popula culture article as well? Pufnstuf 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to domino tiling and redirect to 10000000. John Reaves (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12988816 (number)

[edit]
12988816 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In general, we don't have articles on large numbers such as this. There is no canonical reason for choosing an 8x8 board - why not a 9x9 or 10x10 board? Content should be merged into more appropriate articles, as this is not the location for it. CMummert · talk 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that this article is notable and should be included in Wikipedia for a number of reasons:
    • 1. There is no other article concerning the number 12988816 (known to me).
    • 2. This article is genuinely useful for reference purposes.
By this, I mean the article "12988816" to be used more as a reference from another Wikipedia article than simply as an article one might look up directly (as a search).
I would normally come to the conclusion that the number (and information concerning it) should simply be added as additional information to a more general article in (the article, in this case, is probably the article on the Pfaffian method).
However, I had occasion to actually look up "12988816" (in an attempt to find out more information on the number), so, it seemed reasonable to assume that if I searched for the number, then it would be very likely that there would be someone else who might do the same.
The number of edits of the article itself demonstrates that there is interest in this number. Note that the article has existed for a relatively short period of time and that it is in this short period of time that the relatively large number of edits took place.
    • 3. There are many articles similar to this one, which are also useful for reference.
For a typical example, the article for the number 495 may be viewed. My point here is not to say simply "there are other articles like this one", but to make the point that it is as useful for reference as some other articles.
Some of this article concerns some of his work.
I reviewed the Wikipedia article on the notability of numbers. One quote from the article is the following:
"...highly composite numbers are notable enough to get their own article since they were studied by Paul Erdős"
It is understood from this statement that a number can be considered notable in Wikipedia by association with a notable person. While I don't really agree with this rationale, if I am to go by it, then an article for the number 12988816 is justified by the number's association with not one, but three notable people (one of which has a Wikipedia article etc).
    • 5. The Pfaffian calculation method mentioned in the article is a very useful one, applicable to a very wide range of subjects.
The article offers appropriate references to more comprehensive articles.
    • 6. The number 12988816 is the answer to a very common example problem designed for solution by the Pfaffian method.
With regards to the comment made above by CMummert "why not a 9x9 or 10x10 board?", an 8-by-8 board is of considerable notability as a Chessboard.
I honestly think that the addition of this article can only help make Wikipedia more useful and that the benefits of having the article outweigh the drawbacks. Further, the article itself could be used as the location to place more information on the number (existing information and information yet to be discovered).
ZICO 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numbers with notable properties should be included in Wikipedia. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think the article should be kept because it is in relation to a commonly used mathematical method. The chessboard/domino question is often used to describe the pfaffian calculation method. The number itself is of interest to mathematicians. I searched for 12988816 after looking at the question, to see if it had any interesting properties. Containment 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC) — Containment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Mathematicians and physicists like Okounkov and Fisher find it interesting. I've added a few more categories to show how interesting it is. I've also created the following magic square (of composite numbers) that has digital root of 7 for both its magic constant and itself just to show how interesting this number really is:
12988816
46425274
66566428
90181096
Giftlite 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Domino tiling, delete the old name, and give it some real content. It's a sufficiently sourcable topic to be encyclopedic, but as it is now it fails WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That it superficially appears to be only about an unimportant problem about tiling a chessboard with dominoes may disguise the fact that it's notable because it illustrates the mathematical method, which could be applicable in scientific problems. Michael Hardy 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the method is worth covering, but there is another article for the method. Pfaffian#Applications would be a more logical place for this example. WikiProject Numbers (before it was defunct) thought that a specific number needs about three independent notable properties before it merits an article. CMummert · talk 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per David Eppstein, and reaim the redirect to 10000000, which should have a line on this number - and does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generic number. Wikipedia has fallen pretty far if we keep an article that informs the reader "12988816 is the natural number following 12988815 and preceding 12988817." Lots of things similar to this could be said of any large number. Edison 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regards to the comment made by Edison above, I refer to the article on the number 9. It is a standard opening to a number's article to have something similar to the following: "9 (nine) is the natural number following 8 and preceding 10", thus, the article on 12988816 is completely in line with common Wikipedia practice in stating "12988816 is the natural number following 12988815 and preceding 12988817".
    • With regards to the comment made by CMummert above ("WikiProject Numbers....thought that a specific number needs about three independent notable properties before it merits an article"), it should be noted that the number 12988815 does have at least three independent notable properties, namely the following:
1. It is the number of possible ways of tiling a standard chessboard/checkerboard with 32 dominoes.
2. It is a square number.
3. It is an 8-digit number that has a sequence of three 8s embedded in it, a pattern similar to a repdigit.
In my opinion, point 3 might be stretching the idea a little, but it is a valid point.
ZICO 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ZICO, someone just deleted "point 3", the repdigit property. I think this is similar to "tampering with evidence." :) Giftlite 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was a weak point anyway... ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. Clearly there are some demonstrable items of interest to this number. It's not randomly plucked out of the ether, it's worthy of note. We have Avogadro's number and many other articles about things that are, to oversimplify for the sake of brevity, "just numbers." For all the reasons pointed out above, I have to believe that this article is genuinely worthy of inclusion. Lemonsawdust 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sufficiently interesting and distinctive enough to have it's own page. — RJH (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • So far, there's really only one distinguishing property: this is the number of tilings of an 8-by-8 board with dominos. If we were to relax standards and have articles on every perfect square and every number with a repeated digit, we would have a large number of articles indeed.
The comment "large number of articles" would be an understatement. The number's main known distinguishing property is, indeed, that it is the number of possible tilings of an 8-by-8 board with dominos. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several people have suggested that there are adequate references for the article (or that a number of authors have found this number interesting enough to study). But where are the references to articles or books about this number specifically? (And not indirectly through some other subject.) If we want an article about the sequence [10] of the number of domino tilings of 2n-by-2n squares, then we want an article about the sequence -- not a single entry in the sequence. Several users above have suggested exactly this.
There is a reference to an article in a book specifically about the number 12988816: The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, revised ed., 1997, ISBN 0-14-026149-4, David Wells, p.182. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call that an article. Most entries in that book are just a couple of lines. I don't have the book here so I can't check the 12988816 entry, and some entries are a bit longer, but I doubt it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the Pfaffian method can be applied to compute this number -- or numbers in this sequence -- should be mentioned in the article about that method. If the article about 12988816 survives, then this tidbit should be moved there; if the article about 12988816 morphs into an article about the sequence, then it should simply be copied (and kept). Also, that the Pfaffian method is useful is a point in favor of keeping the Pfaffian article, not this one.
    • ZICO said, "However, I had occasion to actually look up "12988816"". What was the occasion? (Specific to 12988816?)
The occasion was when I came across the "domino tiling a chessboard" problem. I saw that the solution to the problem was the number 12988816. I looked up this number in order to see if there was further information on either it or the problem. I made the point earlier that if I looked up the number specifically, then it would be very likely that someone else would do the same. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison to the article on 495 isn't particularly apt. The guidelines say that articles must stand on their own; that there's another article like it isn't a reason to keep the article. (If someone can come up with a wikilink for this guideline, it'd be appreciated. I can't recall it off-hand.) The comparison to Avogadro's number isn't particularly great either; that number finds wide use in physics in chemistry. The number 12988816 doesn't.
My point was not that the article for the number 12988816 was similar to another article, but that it was as useful for reference as the other article (...when should someone specifically look up the number 495?). ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Avogadro's number, it is simply a defined number. There is nothing particularly interesting about the number itself but it is, as you say, very useful in the Sciences. Avogadro's number would be different if we used a different system of natural units. My point here is that Avogadro's number warrants (and rightly so) an article not due specifically to anything interesting in the number. The number 12988816 has at least one interesting property in that it is square (the other repunit point is pretty superfluous). ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lunch, the link is WP:WAX which expands to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. But I'd argue against using the mysterious abbreviation WAX. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with having the information surrounding the number 12988816 added to "Domino tiling", "Polymino tiling" or to "Pfaffian method", but I still think there should be an article devoted to the number 12988816 specifically. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there is not so much you can write about the number. "12988816 is the number of domino tilings of an 8x8 board" is pretty much everything. Okay, I'll be generous and say that we can add "it is also a square", but that doesn't make an article. The general formula for domino tilings on an n x n board does not belong in the article on 12988816. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "normal" or "usual" integer? Perhaps you've never heard G. H. Hardy's story about 1729. What standard would you use for inclusion? Lunch 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would you have tens of millions of stubby articles on all the integers of this magnitude? What of the guideline "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection"? Lunch 18:05, 22 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowsense

[edit]
Flowsense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy A7. Neologism, fails WP:NEO. Per the last line of the article, it also fails WP:NFT, and by comparing the name mentioned therein with the username who authored it, it also fails WP:COI. YechielMan 03:22, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Walters

[edit]
Joshua Walters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

He's won some poetry slams and shared the stage with some notable artists, but I believe this subject fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 03:35, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Bowl

[edit]
Wade Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable sports league Gorgeous Ferns 04:03, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kucz

[edit]
Kate Kucz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable beauty pageant contestant, "now working as a dental hygienist." NawlinWiki 03:59, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Unofficial Survivor Elimination Game

[edit]
Officially Unofficial Survivor Elimination Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. Zero non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:09, 17 April 2007 (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 all, including the category. --Coredesat 01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breeana (Bratz character)

[edit]
Category:Bratz characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Breeana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cloe (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diona (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Felicia (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fianna (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jade (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Katia (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kiana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kumi (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leah (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maribel (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meygan (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nevra (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nona (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orianna (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phoebe (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rina (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roxxi (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sasha (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sharidan (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sierrna (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trinity (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Valentina (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vinessa (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yasmin (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tiana (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tess (Brazt character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Krysta (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kiani (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lilani (Bratz charcter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sorya (Bratz character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

You've got to be kidding: an entire walled garden on random non-notable Bratz doll cruft. And not just one article, check out Category:Bratz characters, all of which are also nominated (except the repost). Fails WP:CORP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciara (Bratz character). None of these articles have any sources whatsoever. Contested prod. MER-C 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I've found a few more "articles", which weren't in Category:Bratz characters. They are now also included in the nomination. These are listed below. MER-C 06:53, 18 April 2007 (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. Mangojuicetalk 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance Timeline

[edit]
Dragonlance Timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded [11] by Fram and unprodded [12] by David Shepheard. Three points were made in the prod which I'll elaborate on.

  • Unsourced. Speaks for itself. An article of this sort clearly demands inlines, or at least a comprehensive source list at the bottom. Not a single reference, let alone inline, exists on the page.
I'm strongly against deletion for the following reasons:
  • Unsourced - a lack of sources is reason for an article to be cleaned up - not deleted. The Wikiproject Dragonlance have already scheduled this article for clean up work. The article should be tagged with an more appropriate tag and they should be given time to add citations.
The lack of citations is glaring. To source everything in this would require extensive novel citing. You're more the welcome to try, but it's not gonna be a small undertaking. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the citations need fixing. However, I'm not sure why citation can only be done via novels instead of the role playing books. The role playing books present information about Dragonlance in encyclopdic fashion, meaning that you could probably cite this entire article to the latest editon of the RPG. However, if you want information from novels (perhaps to show that multiple sources have been consulted) I think that the Dragonlance Lexicon on the highly respected Dragonlance Nexus website can help. This partially complete encyclopedia of Dragonlance is a work in progress and features many of the events from the Dragonlance timeline (it also gives accurate citations of the novels where information comes from).Big Mac 15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Violation of plot summary. From WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Plot summaries are appropriate when discussing the work in which it appears; this article is a plot summary that exists for no other reason than a plot summary. I think that sums it up.
  • Violation of plot summary. The last sentence mentioned by DoomsDay349 says: A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. and I believe the history of Krynn to be appropriate to the representation of Dragonlance on Wikipedia. However, I don't think that it warrants its own article. I think that this article should be proposed for merger with the Dragonlance article. That article just has a small section on the 4th Age which fails to explain the fictional history of the world of Krynn. It may need some additional pruning after the merger, but I'd rather see content repaired than thrown out.
The plot summary on the main Dragonlance article is still in the works; one man (and well, let's face facts on that) can only do so much. I'd like to see a better plot summary, of course, but a lot of this is very minor, borderline crufty information. Even to place this into the Dragonlance article is an unnecessarily long plot summary. The ideal overview of the Dragonlance plot summary would be the core novels only. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Events before the novels form part of the fictional mythology of Krynn and some of these events form the back story for races and organisations in the novels and role playing game. (For example: "Magic Defending Itself" forms the back story of the Wizards of High Sorcery and the "Greygem" forms the back story of many of the altered races of Krynn. Dragonance is a role playing game as well as a series of novels and dismissing events that are not in the novels may stop readers getting an accurate picture of the game. I think that each of Krynn's 5 "Ages" needs some coverage, although they do not all necessarily need to be in the present form or include all of the events currently in the article.
As to your "one man" comments, I'll see if I can recruit some Dragonlance experts from the Dragonlance Forums.com. Some of the original authors and RPG designers hang out there and even if they can't edit articles they might be able to suggest sources to check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Shepheard (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm just as active on the forums as you are, I'm sure. I've gotten help from them before but most of them work on the Lexicon, if at all. I ask them questions but that's as far as it's likely to go. Most of the experts there are working on either the Nexus, sourcebooks, or their own things (like the new podcast.) I doubt it'll happen. DoomsDay349 18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In-Universe. This is, if anything, what truly does this article in. The very nature of the article requires in universe dating systems, (i.e., PC, AC, SC) which clearly violates the policy of out of universe writing when dealing with fiction. DoomsDay349 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In-Universe. While I certainly would agree that the article should be cleaned up and/or merged, I fail to see how explaining the concept of a fictional dating system is a violation of policy. A good case could be made for reducing the amount of information in the timeline (as well as for citation and merger) but some of this information is vital to anyone trying to understand what Dragonlance is about.
We're hardly explaining it by listing every in universe date at the time something happened. To do so gives the reader the impression that there was really a time called 100 AC (or whatever) and that something happened then. It doesn't work like that. What it should look like is, "In such and such a novel, this happened." Which hardly works for a timeline. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dragonlance isn't just about the stories in the novels - it is also a role-playing game - both were equally important to the development of the campaign setting and the stories set within it. The timeline in this article is almost certainly based on the timeline given in every edition of the campaign setting. Even though the article is badly written and overly long, it does already say that it is a fictional timeline, so I doubt that people will think there actually was a year called 100 AC. However, if we cut the article down and merge it into the Dragonlance artical, we might not need to keep all the year references. People need to know what important events happened and in what order but might not need to know exact dates for all of these events. Summaries that say things like: "The Time of Knights lasted from 2000 PC to 960 PC" may suffice.Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe....'nuff said. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a maintained article - not an abandoned one, so I think that the person who originally proposed the deletion over-reacted. People should work out where this article is failing and then ask the Wikiproject Dragonlance to take reasonable steps to correct its faults. If they fail to do that in a reasonalbe time period (without explanation) then deletion should be considered. But while there are people prepared to fix things they should be helped.Big Mac 04:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To explain the history of Krynn in a timeline format is unreasonable. It's clearly in universe and can never hope to be anything but. Sourcing could be fixed but even then it would be irrelevant. It will always, always be an over extensive plot summary. That cannot be ignored and must be dealt with accordingly. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an unreasonable format, then please propose a reasonable one. This article contains some important content. It would be nice to have a chance to fix things. The deletion process allows for alternatives to deletion and the original person who proposed this for deletion didn't try that. The article could be cut down (to remove events in the timeline that are of little importance to the Dragonlance saga), properly cited (mostly to the Dragonlance RPG books which give detailed information on Dragonlance history) and then merged into the main Dragonlance article. That article already has a small summary of the events of the 4th Age but lacks information about important events before and after that age. All five ages of Krynn's history need to be explained to some extent, for the reader to understand the setting.Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note) I replied paragraph by paragraph. I hope this doesn't make things hard to read. I've signed after each. DoomsDay349 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've replied paragraph by paragraph too. I think that as there are 3 different topics we might need to create 3 headings for them and argue each case separately. My personal feeling is that the first two arguments can be invalidated by work on the article and that only the third one is a valid reason for considering deletion. Splitting this discussion up might help us understand if other people agree or disagree with part of the reason for this deletion proposal. By the way, as I'm making a counter-proposal that the article is tidied up and merged, I've added some appropriate tags to it. (Thanks for setting up this deletion discusson page - its what the other guy should have done in the first place.)Big Mac 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reorganize. I don't believe much in the prod system; if an article clearly ought be deleted, speedy it; if it's at all questionable, discuss it. DoomsDay349 05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a maintained article - not an abandoned one" This article is more than 2 and a half years old, and the most basic problems (like sourcing) still had to be adressed at the time of the prod. I don't see why proposing a prod is then "overreacting"... Fram 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Just needs sourcing? What about the, ya know, in universe and excessive plot summary problems? That just kinda gets brushed under the rug, eh? DoomsDay349 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the merge option is not a good one because an appropriate place to merge to has not been suggested, the main Dragonlance article would be too large if this was merged in. Adressing the threee concerns raised:
  1. Unsourced, this is clearly being adressed. Also this is not a reason to delete whole article, delete any cotroversal or damaging info and tag any likely true but unsourced with Template:fact if there are concerns.
  2. Violation of plot summary - A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. - There are numerous DL articles about stories (Books, games, etc), characters and locations, and a timeline article is appropriate to fit these into a context of the overall story. This is very broad, the whole time of Chronicles trilogy is in 6 lines, I don't think anyone could argue that this is going into an inappropripriate level of fancruft.
  3. In-Universe - Linked with above point. There is a need for much more work here, I would suggest putting place where major plots of books/games fit directly into the timeline not just as footnotes.
Three valid concerns have been raised about this article, but they are all things that can or are being addressed (though much work is needed) and with users actively editing I can see no reason why they should not be able to use the information available to create a better article rather than having to start from scratch.
My one concern is that the title of the article may be of better use for a future listing of Dragonlance materials published in chronological order. A more appropriate name for this article might be Timeline of Krynn as it is a history of this fictional world on which Dragonlance is set rather than of the Dragonlance concept itself - Waza 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Possibility

OK, I've thought this over, and here's what I'm thinking. We definitely need citations. Obviously. We need to go out of universe, so for instance, "In this novel, this happens. This novel references what happened." And so on and so forth. Possibly something like "In this novel, in the fictional year of 1000 PC (example date), this happens." That solves the out of universe. And then we need to cut down on a lot of the minor details, which we can weed out. So who feels that a merge is a possibility? DoomsDay349 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main deletion argument is that it is a plot summary (and logically an in-universe article): the sourcing doesn't change anything, except that we can easily verify if it is a correct plot summary (and I don't think anyone claimed otherwise). All sources are primary sources, but what Wikipedia needs is out-of-universe articles based on secondary sources. The violation of WP:NOT plus some guidelines like WP:WAF remains even it is completely sourced instead of not or half sourced. Fram 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While secondary sources are always preferred, primary sources are fine for something like this. The only time that secondary sources are essential is for establishing notability.Chunky Rice 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in-universe Dragonballs -- no, Dragonquest, no, Dragonlancecruft. -- Hoary 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only valid reason for deletion that's been brought up is the lack of sourcing, but it certainly can be sourced. So it's not original research. The in-universe crticism is valid, but is not grounds for deletion. Similarly the plot summary argument I think fails because this article serves as the back-drop for not just one book, but dozens, as well as the RPG and other associated projects. With that in mind, the length is not excessive. Finally, calling something "cruft" is not an argument at all.Chunky Rice 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FICTION tells us that Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- Hoary 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Fiction also tells us, "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Well, here's the larger topic:Dragonlance Chunky Rice 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this sourceable? Yes. Ultimately, any entry on this list, whatever its form, should be attributable to Dragonlance material. Plot summary? Non-issue to me, since this is an aspect of a notable subject. Besides, this could be easily converted to page covering what DL material covers what era in the timeline. Honestly though, given how many timelines come up for deletion here, I think something in the way of actual discussion needs to go on. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are each discussed thoroughly on the AfD debates, and all recent ones have been deleted, and most current ones seem to go the same way. If Wikipedia was ruled by precedent, this one would be deleted as well :-) As for your other arguments, we'll have to agree to disagree on the use of the "plot summary as part of a larger topic" to keep such things as independent plot summary pages without any secondary source, and which, like in this case, don't help at all for someone who known little or nothing about Dragonlance and wants to learn what it is all about. Fram 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except, they're not discussed as a whole, but rather individual articles coming up, with no discussion of the subject behind it. Some have been deleted, but others have not. Thus Category:Fictional timelines remains in existence. Given those other discussions, I think it's therefore quite important to discuss the subject overall, not in bits and pieces. It's not a thorough discussion, it's a closer to bickering in some cases. Thus I feel it would be of great benefit to establish some consensus on how to develop these pages. Otherwise, we're just going to get the ugly results we're getting now.
And believe it or not, adding references is not a problem, and I think it would be just as easy to list what books/other material covers what part of history. And that would be a great benefit to anybody who wanted to know about Dragonlance. FrozenPurpleCube 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the delete arguments; also, check out this AfD discussion. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? There is not even a reasoning provided by the closing admin for the deletion, let alone a direct connection between the two series. The only connection I can see is that they're both fictional timelines, but as the subject of that is not under review at this time, the connection is tenuous at best. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Tell me how this could help out anyone who isn't a fan of the series. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is basically just a article over the plot of the series, somethingWP:NOT doesn't allow. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NOT, A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Dragonlance has over 100+ novels, a couple dozen RPG supplements, a couple video games, an animated movie based on it, ect. As for it being a "larger topic" on Wikipedia, Category:Dragonlance just skims the surface. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I indicated above, my suggestion is to reference the books and the history together, as that would contribute greatly to the benefit of this timeline for the hypothetical reader. Now it's possible it wouldn't help somebody who didn't care about the books or the setting, but um, yeah, how do you help somebody who doesn't care about a subject? Not exactly a good criteria for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually think that something like this- which is a compilation of information across many books, settings, and so on - is probably more notable than articles on many of the "lesser" individual books of Dragonlance (which could probably be merged into a big "other books in the Dragonlance line" article). It's a useful appendix to the larger Dragonlance article and would be perfectly reasonable fit there if it weren't for summary style. Also, "not useful to people not interested" is a deletion argument I will never understand. The World War II article isn't very useful to someone not interested in finding information on World War II; so what? (As a matter of style, articles should be accessible to people lacking background, for sure, but that's not a deletion issue, that's a cleanup issue.) SnowFire 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The arguments of the delete !voters are desperately unpersuasive. First off, the article is strongly referenced, and I'm unsure what disqualifies RPG books (which like any other have authors, editors, publishers, publication dates and ISBNs) as reliable sources. That readers might be fooled into thinking that these dates are real are covered by (a) the liberal use of the words "fictional timeline" and "fictional events" through the article, and (b) the premise that Wikipedia isn't used by too many complete morons. That the article is of little to no interest to those disinterested in the subject would apply to each and every article on Wikipedia. Finally, the notion that in-universe content invalidates an article flies in the face of overwhelming consensus to the contrary; there are tens of thousands of articles written about highly notable fictional constructs that refer heavily to the fictional milieu. Anyone going to file AfDs on Gondor, Barsoom, Land of Oz, Ruritania, Cabot Cove or Sunnydale any time soon?  Ravenswing  14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In-universe problems are a reason for cleanup and improvement and not deletion - WP:WAF is a style guideline and not a deletion argument. Excessive plot summarization falls under the same category and is fixed by selective editing and not wholesale deletion. Finally, sourcing in this case is also relatively simple to cure. While I would agree that the encyclopedic value of these timeline articles is weak, they do contribute to the understanding of the parent topic well, and when written correctly help the reader to get a better grasp on what's going on - and clearly don't fit inside the parent article. Arkyan • (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think it should be merged with the main Dragonlance novel. It seems too big of a topic, and deserves it's own page. But cleanup of it will probably be required. Hlwarrior 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article gives over emphasis to presenting an in-universe perspective. It is just plot summary with no room for real world context. Jay32183 00:57, 18 April 2007 (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. fishhead64 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton District High School

[edit]
Milton District High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Thinly disguised vanispamcruftisement for a school reunion. I'd also like to see a discussion on the school's notability, as it seems rather unremarkable. Contested prod. MER-C 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out articles re: other local high schools (Lester B. Pearson, Burlington, ON; M. M. Robinson, Burlington, ON), which have obviously not been deleted. Not sure why the inconsistency here, as they seem no more remarkable than this one.

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MER-C 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only claim to notability is two alumni, and that is not enough. Just for comparison Lester B. Pearson High School (Burlington) has more notable alumni & athletic championships--I consider it borderline notable. As for MMRobinson, it's just now been nominated for deletion.DGG 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The discussion of schools has been discussed often and from time to time proposals have been offered but none have reached consensus within the community. Until we decide, I would err on the side of caution and leave the article in place. I think this goes a bit beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because there have been frequent discussions on this specific topic. JodyB 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Change to Delete (hope I did this right) After rethinking my position and re-reading prior debate, I realize that a lack of consensus means there is no consensus to make an exception from WP:NOTE for schools. This one does not seem to meet it. Therefore, I change to delete.JodyB 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SCHOOL is not an accepted guideline, so there is no policy statement which says high schools are or are not inherently notable, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted. " Pending an accepted guideline for schools, I feel the article should be kept. Most high schools will have multiple independent substantial coverage in newspapers, since they are an important part of the community and a large expense to build and operate, and often get into controversies of administration policy, beyond sports scores and graduation lists. The presence of a sentence in the article promoting a reunion is perhaps a reason the EDIT THE ARTICLE but not a good reason to delete the article. Edison 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the half-year I have been here I have seen this attitude change, and a new analysis would show it. DGG 06:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Err ... the limitations of the cut-and-paste AfD !voting approach shows up when one notes that WP:SCHOOL hasn't been cited as grounds for deletion, and moreover just because some editor wrote in an essay that few school-related AfDs two years ago resulted in deletion doesn't mean that school articles which completely fail WP:V get a free pass eternally. Personally, I find the growing consensus that public schools are subject to WP:V and WP:NN just like other articles quite heartening. If you have actual citations which meet the grounds editors have used, please present them.  RGTraynor  19:49, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fobomania

[edit]
Fobomania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article returns after deletion, so let's run an AFD once to decide if Wikipedia wants this. I say it's unsourced and probably non-notable. What say you? — coelacan — 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto. Chris 05:13, 17 April 2007 (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 already speedily deleted, {{db-author}}. --Coredesat 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayez

[edit]
Kayez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently self-authored article about a rapper & music producer, but with no actual recording or production credits listed and no evidence of notability. ShelfSkewed talk 05:08, 17 April 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 07:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Robinson High School

[edit]
M. M. Robinson High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

ordinary high school with 3 well- known alumni, but no other notability DGG 05:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: or to be more precise, one murder victim alumnus (so not much link between the fame and the school / education), and two redlinked "alumni" I have removed because they were probably intended to disparage their subjects (WP:BLP issues). Which leaves us with noone famous because they were at this school or with what they learned at this school, and for the moment no other claims to notability. Fram 10:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:, fails WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:NN. No assertion of notability, no prospect of substantive improvement.  RGTraynor  15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SCHOOL is not an accepted guideline, so there is no policy statement which says high schools are or are not inherently notable, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted. " Pending an accepted guideline for schools, I feel the article should be kept. Most high schools will have multiple independent substantial coverage in newspapers, since they are an important part of the community and a large expense to build and operate, and often get into controversies of administration policy, beyond sports scores and graduation lists. Edison 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An addon. WP:SCHOOL not being a guideline means that school articles have to pass existing guidelines (like WP:ORG and WP:N) or they will be deleted. TJ Spyke 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, it doesn't. Of the five links TerriersFan jumped in to add, three are 100% trivial mentions that this was the high school the people in question attended. The fourth is about a karaoke record breaker where the location mentioned was the school. The fifth comes closest, when it praises the high school's children for a charitable drive, but none are really about the school. Are there any sources about the school as WP:V requires?  RGTraynor  13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable alums, in this context, are ones who accomplish something. a murder victim may be notable, but not because of his high school.DGG 06:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 09:22Z

Holli Durost

[edit]
Holli Durost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement, fails WP:MUSIC. 7 non-wiki ghits outside of myspace. Contested prod. MER-C 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - no credible assertion of notability. YechielMan 06:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Actually, there's no assertion of notability at all, credible or otherwise. CSD A7 and so tagged. (I love the particular expression of her vanity in that she wrote the article, but says that one of her songs is "reported to be about" blah, blah, blah.) Mwelch 06:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater State School

[edit]
Freshwater State School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No assertion of notability. Garrie 05:58, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Garber Drushal

[edit]
J. Garber Drushal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Finsh the sentence: "You know you've been on Wikipedia for too long when..." I found this article in the uncategorized pages. It has all the standard problems for an article on a marginally notable person written by a newbie. User:MER-C, our trusty deletionist, prodded it ten days ago. Then, User:DGG, our resident inclusionist, removed the prod, saying he was the president of a notable college. I'm on the fence - clean up or delete? - so I decided to bring it here. Yes, you know you've been on Wikipedia for too long when you recognize AFD voting patterns in the edit summaries within an article history. :) YechielMan 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. College presidents are usually notable and he did publish in the Journal of Higher Education. I added some information and sources to the article and will next add categories.-Gloriamarie 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This one is licking the bottom of the notability barrel... even after cleaning. - BierHerr 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep if it can be properly sourced - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the additional material added and sourced since the AfD has served to convince me that he's not notable. If the best you can say about his academic accomplishments is "he wrote an article once in 1954 and another time in 1968", he's not notable. And while I agree that university presidents are often notable, and this university's president R. Stanton Hales appears clearly notable, I don't see president of a university that's smaller than many high schools to be sufficient by itself in the absence of any other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Someone who served as the president of a college for 10 years in such an interesting era as 1967-1977 has got to have been interesting, and more than tangentially mentioned in many reliable sources, though probably not a whole heck of a lot on the internet. The president of a university is a public figure whose decisions impact many people: not accepting that as notability is ridiculous. This should stay: it's in need of expansion, not deletion. And the level of sourcing seems just fine to me for now. Mangojuicetalk 21:18, 23 April 2007 (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, no assertion of notability in the article, and no sources provided either on this page or in the article make this a easy decision. Future rewrites (if any) must go beyond the "This is a version of <game>. It was written by <name>. It can be played on <platforms>. <external link>" boilerplate description, which is all this article consisted of. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 14:02Z

Sea3d

[edit]
Sea3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable unlicensed computer implementation of a notable board game JHunterJ 11:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:21, 17 April 2007 (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 and redirect to revealed religion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation religion

[edit]
Revelation religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism, phrase does not seem to exist outside of article creator's opinion. It's not a speedy deletion candidate though, so here we are. — coelacan — 06:28, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Erwin

[edit]
Richie Erwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The user who set up this AfD did not bother finishing it, so I will do so as I happen to also think the article should be deleted. What we have here is a wholly non-notable average joe and part-time amateur footballer whose claim to "fame" is that by virtue of winning a competition he got to play in a charity match involving various other non-footballers on the pre-opening community day at the new Wembley Stadium and happened to be the defender who was supposed to be marking the player who scored the first goal in said game which technically was the first goal at the new stadium. No evidence that he himself has received any coverage (even the match itself barely got any) or meets any inclusion criteria. Even the defender who was marking the first goalscorer in a professional match at Wembley wouldn't have received any coverage for that specific fact ChrisTheDude 06:51, 17 April 2007 (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 per consensus. PeaceNT 05:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigender

[edit]
Bigender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have never heard of this term, it seems to be a neologism. Certainly it does not appear to be a notable term - I can find no reliable sources through a Google search. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also appears (due to materials on sites for transgender individuals and livejournals) that is a preferred term of self-reference for growing number of people. It may be the case that is is not a common term, but it certainly appears to be a notable one. I hadn't heard of the term before I came across this AfD. I will grant the article need citations and could use some work in general, but the editing process can take care of that. Fixer1234 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first two pages of Google, which in my experience usually proves an article's notability nine times of ten. Kindly assume good faith. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I didn't mean to insult. Btw, the links above are now fixed. Best Fixer1234 12:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to include this link, which is referenced from the Wikipeida article, transgender. Fixer1234 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not for nothing, but a Google Scholar search is often more helpful. Regular Google will put Urban Dictionary above The Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association every time. —Celithemis 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Fixer1234. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I admit that I learned something from reading it. My first thought on seeing the word bigender was that it had to do with Gulliver's Travels and the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu. If kept, perhaps that should be disambiguated here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - no no no no no. I was just thinking about this today. We get a word made up a few years ago, and it barely makes its way into a few nominal, though notable, publications with a clear agenda in the same subject (e.g., the Trans-Alliance Society). It is actually a disservice to our readers to treat such a nominal term as if it were worthy of an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Part Deux (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Every word in the English language was created in exactly this way - someone made it up, then it was used by notable individuals and organizations. If notable organizations are using this word, and if the concept behind the word is encyclopedic (as I feel this is, given the other references found), an article on it will improve Wikipedia, especially in a case where no other word fits. This isn't the equivalent of transgender or transsexual - it's a different matter that likely didn't have a word for it before because people were likely too afraid to talk about it earlier. --Charlene 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, a few trivial mentiosn in a few scholarly journals is trivial. This is completely my interpretation of WP:NEO, granted, but I don't believe that a word deserves a mention in an encyclopedia until more than a few people, and not people with an interest of some sort in the issue (e.g., Gay and Lesbian Medical Association The International Journal of Transgenderism, etc.) mention it. Part Deux 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my post (I'm fixer1234) in which two professional organizations that are not specifically LGBT made use of the term. *Also, I want to argue firmly that a term is not necessarily non-notable just because interest in that term (and reference to that term) is limited to a specific community or field of study. *As to your original argument for deletion, I must echo the sentiments of the user Charlene. New words or new uses of existing words enter the language all time. Pendants may decry this as defiling the language, and other (informed) parties might argue against the need for a new term or the correctness of a new term. But, so long as there are reputable individuals using the term, it is legitimate. *As I noted in my first post, I hadn't heard this term (used this way) before, but just a little bit of research clearly showed this term wasn't just some Wikipedia editor's neologism. "Bigender" may be a new term and use of it may limited, but it is used by individuals both in and out of the LGBT community. Those outside of the LGBT using it include medical professionals and social workers. Those in the community include academics. *Given these facts, I must reassert that this article should be kept. Fixer1234 21:00, 18 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Knowledge Factory

[edit]
24 Hour Knowledge Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is blatant spam created by a pair of single purpose accounts ConfuciusOrnis 07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 09:20Z

History and reconciliation

[edit]
History and reconciliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a long way from being a stub, has been tagged as an orphan since Sept, 2006, and with cleanup tags for a year. Other than vandalism, the page has not been modified since the addition of the tags, or improved since its creation in April 2006. Flyguy649talkcontribs 07:11, 17 April 2007 (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 merge. Sr13 (T|C) ER 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amulet of Yendor

[edit]
Amulet of Yendor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article not verifiable through reliable sources. Makes no assertion of notability. JimmyBlackwing 07:11, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe

Don't Talk, Just Listen

[edit]
Don't Talk, Just Listen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rumored album, no official announcement made. Nothing on band's webiste or allmusic.com ([14]). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rockstar (T/C) 08:36, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of SR West Country Class locomotives

[edit]
List of SR West Country Class locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm nominating this page and two similar ones (one redirected to main article, but the same in principle (see history) for deletion, because they constitute the kind of excessive detail that is good for specialized fansites, but not really for an encycloepdia. I'm not proposing the deletion of articles on types of locomotives, I'm only proposing to delete all lists (I don't know if there are any beyond these three, these are by one editor and were thus easy to find) of individual locomotives without real historical significance. These articles are unsourced, non notable, not used for navigation between articles or the groupng of articles (a common and good use of lists), but just to give additional details beyond the general info on locomotive types. I fail to see any purpose for this kind of lists. I suppose that these function as a kind of memorial for trainspotters, but then again, WP:NOT for memorials. Fram 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

I hope you intended this as a light hearted joke :) Fram 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a light hearted joke. Nick mallory 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You might consider this 'excessive detail' but train records, like cricket ones, are all about excessive detail You might not find this fascinating but it's exactly the reason why Wikipedia is such a useful resource. Yes it could be expanded with some extra information but I don't see why this needs to be deleted. What's wrong with giving 'additional info beyond the general' exactly? They can be linked better and so forth but they've only just been created. It's not a memorial, it's the subject itself. Individual trains in a class all have their own history and importance and just because you fail to see the importance of such lists is no reason to deny them to the rather large number of people who DO see the importance of such things. Nick mallory 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, could you then try to explain the importance of such things for those who don't see it? There are tens of thousands of locomotives in the world (past and present), which individual locomotives are notable enough to have their info in a list? All of them? Or only some classes? And then why those? Fram 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some would be worthy of inclusion, some wouldn't be, but your thin end of the wedge argument is a logical fallacy. I'll try to explain their significance as asked by Fram. These lists link a certain set of trains to a certain set of important places, organisations and and events in British history and culture. Trains have a significance as individual objects in Britain they simply don't have in America for example, and I say that as someone with no interest in the things. They are far closer to ships in significance than individual cars. This sort of information isn't frivolous, it's exactly what people use wikipedia for and if Wikipedia doesn't provide these more esoteric details then people will start going to the bigger, better encyclopedia that's set up next year in competition. You don't think that it's significant that trains built just after the Second World War were named after important British fighter Squadrons? You think that's just the same as a car being stamped number 454653453? I beg to differ. The fact that nearly all the names are linked to other articles in Wikipedia shows their names are meaningful, they are not random or without significance. A train is part of the town it is named after just as a ship or a bridge is. Yes this may not sound logical to you, but that's the situation in Britain and Wikipedia should reflect that. Nobody is asking you to read or contribute to such articles, only to accept that some things which you see no meaning in do have real meaning for others. Nick mallory 11:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "thin edge of the wedge" is not a logical fallacy if you can't explain where you would draw the line and why. On the other hand, claiming that if we don't have this info, people will go to a not existant bigger and better encyclopedia is a logical fallacy. Anyway, I don't mind that an article about a certain class of locomotives contains a paragraph explaining what types of names they got (with some examples), and an explanation of why they got these names. However, I still fail to see why a complete list of all names is needed, and if so, why this list was set up with the explanation of what happened to the locomotive, and not why it had this or that name. Of course if trains are named after well-known things (people, castles, shipping lines, ...) that most of these names will be bluelinks, but that is hardly relevant. I absolutely don't see what your explanation of why they are supposedly important enough to list each and every one of them has to do with the article up for deletion, e.g. List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives, which contains none of the info you mention. Fram 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bring on the hurt. This is unreferenced and apparently OR. The lists are not encyclopedic, and it's hard to see them as a contribution to an encyclopedic collection. -- Mikeblas 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hunch that these are not OR, but come from some trainspotters books or magazine (not necessarily a copyvio, just as a source). However, we don't reproduce the catalogue raisonnée for (famous) artists, and we don't reproduce the catalogue raisonnée for classes of locomotives, since these are excessive detail for an encyclopedia and are only good in highly specialized works. Of course I agree with the deletion and with the rest of your reasoning, but I think that OR may be an incorrect argument (unreferenced, certainly, but not necessaryli unverifiable). Fram 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is the article unreferenced? They are clearly referenced at the bottom of the page in the section marked 'References'. Just because those references come from one of those old book type things, instead of the sparkling interweb, doesn't mean they're not valid. Nick mallory 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles were unreferenced at the time I wrote that, and List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives still is. Fram 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists such as these provide a fascinating insight into the names and numbers of locomotives, and also to the social history of the period they were introduced. The names of the West Country Class locomotives are also a testament to the publicity of the Southern Region in naming locomotives after resorts. And as for OR, have you ever read a copy of the Ian Allan ABC books on locomotives? Battle of Britain Class as a whole are a testament to the actions British pilots during the conflict, so therefore, the lists are more than merely referencing locomotive names. I hope that you can see more than what is on the page, and think about your harsh actions. My comment concerning the Merchant Navy Class list is that they denote that not only were they names for locomotives, but they were named in honour of the Merchant Navy shipping lines who were heavily involved during the conflict. Therefore, I resent the comment that they are 'memorials' for trainspotters, which shows how misguided some people's perceptions are considering the genre. They are a part of Britains heritage, and as a result, the world's. I'm sure that if you asked a member of the shipping lines what he would prefer, he would prefer to keep them.--Bulleid Pacific 12:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, perhaps they can be merged in this case, but do we really want this kind of informationN Do we want a list of all +- 300 FM H-16-44 locomotives? All 700 TRAXX locomotives? The 382 locomotives of the USATC S100 Class? All 171 of GWR 4073 Class? Oh wait, we already have that one. Yep, those question marks really learned me a lot about "the social history of the period they were introduced" and were "a fascinating insight into the names and numbers of locomotives". Sorry for the sarcasm, but such remarks (by Bulleid Pacific, above) sound good but don't seem to have much relation to the lists at hand, and the sheer numbers of locomotives make it rather clear that while merge and redirect may seem a good idea at first, in fact it is a bad solution, since such lists, whether independent or included in an article, serve no real purpose. Insight in the naming system can be given by a few choice examples ("the GWR 4073 Clas locomoticves were named for British (?) castles like Thombury Castle and ..."), if needed. A short list of preserved locomotives (if there are indeed only a few surviving ones) may be more interesting, but what is the point of listing tens or hundreds of deleted, interchangeable locomotives? Would anybody know less about the GWR 4073 Class if they didn't know that the 7022 was called Hereford Castle? Fram 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that the two types mentioned above are particularly notable in railway history, whereas the S100 Class for example, are less so. (And yes, I'd agree that the list could quite happily disappear from GWR 4073 Class). Unfortunately, that's not particularly helpful (where does the notability bar stand for railway locomtives? Hmm!). But for the most notable types, I don't think it diminishes Wikipedia much to have that information, especially where the lists supply more information that just a locomotive number. See British Rail Class 55 for a good article with a merged list. EliminatorJR Talk 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between most of the above and the case in point lies in the fact that they have NAMES, therefore, making each one unique. I can see that your argument may take a macro approach, such 'Why not include a list of every human being who has ever lived on Wikipedia to prove a point?' The difference here is the fact that a steam locomotive is rather more finite than the human race, and therefore, it wouldn't do much for the bandwidth if something limited by the number built was listed in Wikipedia. The example you have cited above is a key context. It demonstrates the fact that there WAS an locomotive with the name Hereford Castle, but there wasn't one called Dunstaffnage Castle. Also, several of the castle class locomotives were renamed throughout their careers, and by documenting this will certainly help to indicate their interchangability as you so eloquently put it. As for that rather insulting comment above, that I am still willing to forgive you about, the social history comes from the fact that they were marketing ploys by the locomotive companies promoting tourist attractions within their regions. This regionality can only be demonstrated through the listing of all members in order to prove/disprove this hypothesis. The SR Schools Class V advertised Public Schools, but which ones? The Princess Coronation Classes denoted members of the British Royal family at the time of building, but whom? It is only by seeing the names in their entire context that it becomes clear that they are important. As Williams, Mark stated in On the Rails (Discovery Home and Leisure 2005), "Every locomotive has its own personality." And please keep the sarcasm to a minimum, I believe you are getting quite heated here judging by your typing mistakes. It is actions such as this that compromise Wikipedia's potential.--Bulleid Pacific 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but there we disagree. A text (preferably in the main article) describing how the names were used as marketing ploys, with a few examples, is very interesting information. A list of all names without this explanation is pointless, and a list of all names with the explanation is overkill. As for the personality: every house has a personality (and many houses have names as well), every person has a personality, but we don't have or want articles on every house and person. Are they, individually, notable? Are they notable enough to list every single one of them? I doubt it very much. Is information on the numbering and naming systems, and (for older and rare locomotives) information on the status of the few remaining locomotives interesting? Yes, certainly, please add it to all articles about locomotives were applicable! Is information on the total number of locomotives produced, and perhaps some division between types or purposes, interesting, notable, an essential part of the history of the class of locomotives? Again, certainly! But please draw the line there and don't go from the interesting to the repetitive... Again, take a look at FM H-16-44: the tables at the bottom are interesting information: to list the individual locomotives though (never mind if they have names or only numbers) would be too much. On the other hand, GWR 1076 Class is an example of an article that needs a lot of the info removed. The info that locomotive "748 (1873 - 1932, pannier tanks fitted 1919)" is hardly of encyclopedic value. Fram 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd disagree even there; while the article needs expanding to explain the context, even that bit about the pannier tanks is potentially useful. The context there isn't "there was a loco without pannier tanks; it later had them fitted"; the context is "by fitting condensors and pannier tanks to the locomotives, it allowed them to run for longer times in tunnels. This allowed the trains to use the Metropolitan Line to reach the Widened Lines, allowing mainline trains to cross London from the north and west to reach the Channel ports without using the congested West London Line and eliminating the bottleneck at Clapham Junction." I would argue that just because an article doesn't at present include this context, doesn't necessarily mean the context doesn't exist - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All right, I'm a fan of history, don't get me wrong. But I do not understand the significance of this article. If I have it right, and I think I do, this is just a list of trains that ran from the 1940s -1960s. I'm not sure where they ran as the article does not specify, but it's safe to say that they were used at some point. Am I missing something, or is that really the point of the article? Isn't that comparable to having a list of Boeing 747s used during the 1980s? I don't see the need for this type of information. None of it can be properly sourced, thus it cannot be verified. Also, as it is not sourced, notability cannot be asserted. --Cyrus Andiron 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been sourced from the book noted in the reference section.
Comment One source does not assert notability. Read the following from WP:NOTABILITY: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." --Cyrus Andiron 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then how about Ian Allan's ABC books? The Power of the Bulleid Pacifics? I mean how many sources do you require for set data to be referenced?
Me personally? I quoted Wikipedia policy. When I checked, the article only had one reference listed. I don't see the others you mentioned listed anywhere. I'm only dealing with the article that is up for deletion right now. Also, sign your posts with 4 tildes ~~~~.Cyrus Andiron 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, someone's got heated there. But Cyrus, he/she does have a point. If it is set data, then surely only one reference is needed, as multiple referencing is a bit overkill?--Bulleid Pacific 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone, Bulleid Pacific? You're the one that typed it. Are you trying to play two sides here? [15]--Cyrus Andiron 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HeHe lol :) ;), but seriously, split personalities aside, what do YOU think? I've sais what I've had to say on the topic, and so I leave it in your capable hands, but at the end of the day, its supposed to be fun as well as informative, and insulting each other is NOT fun. As long as you are satisfied with the main article concerning the class in general (Not names/numbers, but descriptions and referencing), then I am happy. And yes, I can see that I'm trying to float a sinking ship here. I don't accept your arguments completely, but I suppose the info is only for die hard enthusiasts like myself. Anyway, sorry for any inconvenience, Au-Revoir. --Bulleid Pacific 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Well, I do think this kind of extensive list is not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't object to it being elsewhere. OTOH, I do recognize that many naval-ship classes have a list of ships within the class. (and even articles for the ships) But that might be enough of a different situation given that most naval ships are slightly more notable than trains. I have no objection, however, to a page describing the class itself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The lists aren't notable enough to form a separate article, but should be included in the articles about the relevant locomotive classes. There are usually multiple reference books that list this data and these should of course be added as properly cited references. The information in the tables is highly relevant for those engaged in historical study not just of the locomotives themselves but also the wider social and historical impact of railways. The history of technical development, adoption and obsolescence is told directly in this data. Locomotive tables are common practice in a large number of the locomotive-class articles. Redirects are not needed because these are unlikely search terms. Gwernol 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, with a merge, redirects are needed because otherwise we are not in compliance with the GFDL which requires that a history of edits be kept. The only way to get around that would be to go to the sources and check for the information itself, effectively recreating that data. Furthermore, while indeed this information may be useful to historians, Wikipedia isn't a primary source, and as valuable as it may be, might not be suitable for inclusion soley on that basis. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. I favor having articles about types of locomotives, just as there should be for models of automobiles, but I would likewise not favor a list of 1983 Oldsmobiles manufactured, by vin number. Way too much excessively detailed information. Some of the Keep comments are just "ILIKEIT." Claiming they are encyclopedic because they have names of towns painted on them is no more convincing than saying others are encyclopedic because they have numbers painted on them, or we should list every soldier from WW1 and WW2 because each had both a name AND a number. Claiming they are encyclopedic because of being in a list in a book would mean I could put my towns phone book in Wikipedia (or at least one so old it is public domain).There are also books listing every soldier in an army in a historic war. Edison 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On that basis we could delete every article on individual episodes of TV series on the basis that a article on the programme itself has an article. I would argue that the lists nominated provide a certain amount of encyclopedic information and therefore a merge & redirect rather than a delete is in order - most other locomotive class articles have such lists incorporated into their articles. EliminatorJR Talk 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several people would support the deletion of individual episodes of TV series as non-encyclopedic, but that's neither here nor there. The real point is, demonstration of encyclopedic value is not solely in whether the information exists, but in providing an explanation as to the value of such information in an encyclopedia. All your assertion might mean is that the lists in the locomotive class articles should be removed. FrozenPurpleCube 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would dearly love to have this article kept, as it will serve as a justification for many very long lists that I would like to assemble. But more seriously I am beginning to wonder about the feasibility of a WikiData or WikiLists as a complement to WikiBoooks, DGG 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. The lists are valuable, a useful reference tool for anyone researching these classes of loco, but would be better as part of the main articles (as is already done with other classes of steam locomotive) – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three or at worst merge with no content deletion. I suspect non-West European Wikipedians don't necessarily appreciate just how central the railway network was (and is) to UK & Irish (and French & Italian) culture; train names aren't just generic "that'll do" names but are used by governments, train operating companies etc to make political points and honour individual achievements. (I suspect a lot of people - possibly a majority - would take having a train named after them over a knighthood.) The period these lists cover was probably the most significant in terms of the UK railway network, covering the last days of private ownership, nationalisation and the run-up to the Beeching Axe, against a backdrop of political chaos (with the Attlee, Churchill and Eden governments using the railways as a political football), and should be viewed as not just a piece of trainspotter-cruft but as a document of social history. Wow, that answer went on longer than I intended... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well put. The argument that the names of trains mean no more than the serial numbers of oldsmobiles highlights the cultural dislocation running through this discussion. The names are not simply random prefixes to lumps of machinery but a living part of British History. The articles can and will be developed to show this but deleting them as insignificant, while keeping episode guides to every reality TV show made in the last 5 years highlights why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously by anyone over the age of 25. If 'I like it' isn't an argument for inclusion then 'i don't like it' isn't an argument for deletion. Nick mallory 11:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these are list of locomotive names, not train names. A locomotive is not a train. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification for bemused Americans Unlike the US, where the route has the name, in the UK (with a couple of exceptions like the Flying Scotsman and The Robin Hood) it's the locomotive/train (the two are interchangeable in this context) that carries the name - so, for example, the Twentieth Century Limited in the US could be hauled by any engine and keep the name, whilst the Marston Vale in the UK would refer to the train itself wherever it happened to be, even if its route took it nowhere near Marston (as it has today, going past my house on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line in north London). Even the Hogwarts Express runs on various routes, most going nowhere near Kings Cross. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So people say "I'll take the Marston Vale of 9:45", and not "I'll take the train to Barking"? That is ... bizarre. I understand that each train has a name instead of a number, but I wonder if people usually reference trains by their name. It seems like an extremely unlikely method, if you can't know which train will take which route when. "Oh, it's Thursday, I'll guess I'll take the "Winston Churchill". Then I'll be just in time to get the "Princess Anne" in Manchester". Something like that? Fram 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it sounds bemusing to non-Europeans, but yes - there are people (and not just the diehard trainspotters/rail enthusiast types) who will travel on a particular time/date to ride behind a particular loco - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a Belgian and it sounds bemusing to me ;-) Why would you want to travel behind a particular loco if you are not a trainspotter / rail enthusiast type? Fram 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two types: people who want to say they've been on a trip hauled by a particularly famous loco (ranging from Mallard and Gresley's Flying Scotsman through to the Hogwarts Express and Thomas the Tank Engine), and people who want to travel on on the loco/multiple unit named after their town/workplace/school/regiment etc. Yes, like so much UK culture it sounds bizarre to people who aren't used to it, but there is a whole industry behind it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chaps. A new day of hot debate and trail-blazing awaits us. Well, I usually like to know whats in front, as you now know, Fram. Nowadays its just like that with steam railtours on Network Rail. You just don't seem to realise that there are people who want this sort of detail in Wikipedia to supplement the articles. Therefore it satisfies both the experienced and the novice. Anyway, what happens if someone in Australia for example was interested in the topic, read the main article, and said "I want to know more, but I can't 'cos I don't have access to the relevant literature, and if I move to another website, I'll forget the name of the article." Therefore such lists are a matter of convenience for the interested reader. Are you trying to say that you discriminate aainst the interested reader? I certainly hope not.--Bulleid Pacific 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and funnily enough, I've found this: What about this? "Stand-alone lists are a type of article. All articles should include a lead section, and stand-alone lists are no exception. Even when the meaning of the page's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes the list.

If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."

If dog breeds are alowed in here, then I think locomotive names can be in here also.--Bulleid Pacific 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep (or if necessary re-merge). My understanding of these tables is that they were split-out to reduce the size of the main articles, as is recommended practice as I understand it. Since WP 'is not paper' (sorry, can't remember all the shortcuts), why is it not possible for an article to have what is effectively a sub-page containing a specific set (or list) of data, to maintain a concise and attractive main article? (At least one of the relevant main articles here has recently been recognised as a Good Article.) The split-out article should not need to be 'notable' in itself since the main article is already agreed as such (which is not in question here). Readers could then chose whether to follow the link or not. There are numerous pages on WP that are extremely long and would benefit from such subdivision.
As for the data itself, the above comments concerning the naming of locomotives (not trains!) for publicity purposes show that it is sufficiently important to include in WP. In the UK, as hinted above, it was, and still is, considered a great honour to have a locomotive (or, more likely these days, a complete multiple unit) named after you or your organisation. When such a naming takes place, often itself an 'event', it is common practice for a replica nameplate to be given to the namesake, and these will be displayed proudly at the RAF airfield, company headquarters, or whatever, as a badge of honour. It really is 'a big deal' in the UK.
BTW -- I don't have these reference books myself, and I would rather not have to visit my local library to request a book be put aside for me at some indefinite time in the future, when I should be able to click on the link to the table in WP.
EdJogg 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, well made.--Bulleid Pacific 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Oooohhhh, I believe there is also a List of comic books that Fram has contributed to. This is not a personal attack, but merely an undermining of the argument. Lists are useful after all, in whatever context. I mean, one comic book is like any other, isn't it? No. Well its the same for steam locomotives. If you like, each one had a "Personality."--Bulleid Pacific 13:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mix things which are unrelated, as you do here and above (with the list of Dog Breeds argument). From Wikipedia:List guideline: there are three reasons for lists: information, navigation, or development. The latter is not relevant here, but the two lists you seem to use a an argument that the locomotives lists should be kept are from a different category; the locomotives lists are intended solely for information, while the list of comics / dog breeds / ... are intended mainly for navigation. There are no articles for the individual locomotives (and for most of them there never will be, although some locomotives may be notable enough for their own article): there are or should be articles for all entries in the list of dog breeds, comic books, ... As for the personality of the locomotive, I would love to see how you will address the different personalities of these locomotives in these lists with adequate sources. Naughty Tavistock? Obnoxious 257 Squadron? A name does not equal a personality. Fram 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked, 257 Squadron built up a reputation for clockwork running, quite famous for its reliability, which was unusual for an Unrebuilt Bulleid pacific.(www.southernlocomotives.co.uk) Tangmere was naughty when she broke her combination levers on the main line, much to the derision of Network Rail.(Steam Railway, June 2006, page 7) So yes, they do have their own personalities! Steam has frequently been noted as the closest thing mankind has created through heavy engineering to a living thing.(Pete Waterman on Pete Waterman's Trains, Discovery Channel, 2004) As for sources, check out Steam Railway magazine, Steam World, Heritage Railway and the Southern Locomotives Ltd. Website that gives you plenty of personality.

The list is actually conveying INFORMATION, albeit for rivet counters, but even they have a right to be on here, as my presence indicates. Its too simplistic just to have class background without going through build dates and rebuilding dates, and discriminating against those who want to know more with the facts at their fingertips is not a way to run Wikipedia. I re-iterate: "Therefore such lists are a matter of convenience for the interested reader."

On the issue of NAVIGATION, most of the names are linked to other pages in Wikipedia, so one can navigate from this to find out about the places they were named after.

Also check out Clan Line and SR Merchant Navy Class 35027 Port Line for individual locomotive histories. I'm surprised you haven't put these up for deletion, either, because they're "duplicates of the same locomotive."

--Bulleid Pacific 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can't find these online, then it sort of proves the point that such information is here for the convenience of the interested reader. Its like trying to put together a computer without a manual, articles of steam locomotives need such dispensations if they are to work properly. Thats the point of them. Otherwise, let us delete EVERY locomotive-related article on Wikipedia on the basis of having too much specialised data for the interested reader.--Bulleid Pacific 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This information is notable, so the lists should stay. They might as well have their own page, to prevent the article about the locomotive class from becoming too long. Dannyboy3 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per extensive discussion above (I'm not going to reinvent the wheel for you), esp in a British context this sort of data is useful (while to us Brits the US notion of naming every passenger train route is somewhat odd), at the very worst, merge rather than delete. Pickle 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons already given. - Axver 15:13, 19 April 2007 (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. --Michael Snow 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Adler

[edit]
Tiffany Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Closer's notes
The balance of debate favored deletion, with a group favoring keeping the article. Articles for deletion is a discussion and not a vote, so the points made in the discussion had to be given appropriate weight.

As several people pointed out, the article falls under the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which requires high standards for justifying content and strict adherence to policies on neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research. Renaming the article does not change the calculus, because the article still focuses by definition on an incident that was entirely about the actions of this individual. Despite the efforts to present the incident in neutral language, the apparent absence of verifiable information to support a balanced view of this person's life makes it extremely difficult to produce a neutral stand-alone article. This factor thus weighed in favor of deletion.

Much of the debate centered on notability, with no immediate consensus on that issue. The subject matter for an encyclopedia is a matter of editorial judgment, so attempts to reduce this to pure formulas (misdemeanors by definition are not notable, X number of sources by definition is notable) were given less weight. After this was done, the clear weight of opinion, as expressed by most of the editors who moved beyond formulas, favored deletion. They effectively reached an editorial judgment that the subject was trivial and not of lasting significance.

Another possibility was to merge the content of the article elsewhere. A few people raised, but did not carry out, alternative suggestions about where to cover the incident. It might be possible to discuss it in the context of gay bashing or Pacifica, California. However, the evidence did not really show that the incident was significant to the history of either of those subjects, and it would be inappropriate to push that forward as a novel argument without supporting evidence. Accordingly, I declined to consider the option of merging the content.

Weighting the points made during the discussion based on this evaluation, the result was a consensus in favor of deletion.

This person has not been found guilty of anything, I've already removed significant WP:BLP violations with categorisation and 'See also's, and removed a submission for Featured Article. Non-notable event? Steve (Stephen) talk 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. It may be a hate crime, but it is still a relatively petty crime. Wikipedia is not a place to report every minor crime that happens.Balloonman 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete BLP-violating non-notable rubbish; she hasn't even been convicted! CloudNine 15:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event was significantly notable in Pacifica, front page news in the local paper. Also, repeated articles in the regional San Mateo County paper. And, repeated coverage in the paper of the nearby Cities of San Francisco and Palo Alto. Witness also, as genuine measure of 'notability', this thread in Google groups. Empirically, the news coverage I have cited carries more weight than the personal value judgment Baloonman who appears to be basing his/her opinion on personal bias as 'minor crime' and 'petty crime'. Also, CloudNine offers no evidence to back his/her reasons, and lacking such we must conclude are personal biased opinion. SaltyBoatr 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should include an article on every notable suspect, even if they may later be found innocent of the crime? That would surely
She is not a suspect, she is a plaintiff, she has allready been arraigned.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Still, she hasn't been convicted yet, which is the most important thing. CloudNine 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a WP:BLP violation, and be a stain on their reputation. CloudNine 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incidant in and of itself is a stain on her reputation, this artile is not intended to "stain" her, the police reports and San Francisco Examiner article have allready done that. Notwithstanding her pending trial, any one who googles hername or does a backround check would run into this information even if wikipedia did not exist.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You use a Straw Man Argument as I don't advocate for 'every'. Neither do I advocate for violating BLP, and clearly this article could exist in compliance with BLP if carefully edited. I presented evidence that this case is notable; evidence which you have not addressed or refuted. Neither have you presented evidence clarifying the appearance that your position appears based on little more that personal opinion and personal bias. SaltyBoatr 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it to take care of some of the more blatant WP:BLP problems, but it's still pretty thin. Most of the articles aren't really all that detailed and there were several statements without sources. I still think it's non-notable based on the fact the crime is a misdemeanor. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy standard has nothing to do with 'misdemeanor'. Please re-read WP:Notable. The standard is: A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The conditions for that standard have clearly been met in this instance. SaltyBoatr 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under that argument there should not have been an article on Scott Peterson until he was convicted or acquitted, and from where you're coming from it seems like that if he were mistrial ed he wouldn't have an article at all. Whether or not the charges are later dropped is conjecture, and wikipedia doesn't exclude articles on conjecture. The whole Duke Lacrosse Scandal is a good example of how those situations may be mitigated effectively. And whethere you think it is a bloody misdemeanor or not, I'm sure you would love having apples chucked at you. I'm sure it would be lovely if i were gay and someone chased me in a car and threw blunt objects at me while i walk down the street with my sweety. It made it into the San Francisco Examiner a newspaper for a major American city. It passes the notability test and the google test.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to attack Lankybugger. The Scott Peterson case received "dominated the American media for many months," and was clearly notable. I'm not sure it passes the Google test. CloudNine 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Google test' is not found in WP:Notability and therefore irrelevant. And, whether CloudNine finds it personally notable is irrelevant. Please re-read WP:Notability, the conditions have been met. SaltyBoatr 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't claiming non-notability via the Google test. This article is not about Tiffany Adler anyway; it's about a fruit-throwing incident she may or may not have been involved in and has not been convicted for (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)). I'll support a move to April 2007 Pacifica fruit-throwing incident, as it's a more suitable title. CloudNine 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh no thats pattently false, newspapers report she doesn deny being involved, the only thing she denies is knowing that they are gay, please read the articlesT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a case for a new article about the incident, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: the deletion of this article. The two questions raised are BLP and notability. The BLP issues have been addressed and apparently resolved through diligent editing. The notability issues are also resolved by distinguishing between 'personally notable to individual editors' (irrelevant) and notability per WP:Notability criteria. The criteria of WP:Notability have all been met. At present I see no WP:Policy based reasons which justify the deletion of this article. SaltyBoatr 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man arguments. The article does not say 'convicted'. The 'BLP issues' appear to have already been resolved, and if not, they can be resolved through editing. SaltyBoatr 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not straw man arguments. Policy arguments. There's no evidence of notability. The five sources here were news, yes, but there's been multiple coverage in many different sources for other news items which turned out to be non-notable. If Adler's charges are subsequently dropped, proven false, etc, we have an accusation which is effectively groundless and even mentioning the alleged hate-crime would be a WP:BLP issue. Again, it's not our job to disprove the notability, but it's your job to prove notability. This incident which is a misdemeanor. It's gotten very little media coverage, most of it of the "Hey, this happened" variety with no follow up. And note I'm not arguing for deletion forever, but deletion until the charges are resolved. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this in the local and regional press, and your characterizations that this 'gotten very little media coverage' and 'no follow up' are incorrect. I mentioned the print coverage, but there has also been 'top story' broadcast media coverage[16]. I also disagree that if the article sticks to credible source policies that BLP is violated, this is not actually the case. SaltyBoatr 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking of course, of the items cited in the article itself. Please go ahead and update the article with more sources and I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Right now I'm looking at the articles and essentially seeing nothing which indicates this is a notable event. Further searches for Tiffany Adler online show the same articles sourced here: One piece covered around the time it happened, and then two more around the time the "Not Guilty" plea was entered. Which newspaper was this on the front page of? Which news outlets covered this more than once, and on what dates? If this was covered on TV, by what news station and during which report? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the local newspaper, the Pacifica Tribune. You perhaps are looking at only online web sources? This was in the paper version which I read in March. The TV coverage was on local station KPIX a CBS affiliate. Sorry, I do not have instant recollection of the exact dates. Still, even without my answers to your three questions, there is already enough corroboration online to meet the standards of WP:Notability, that is: coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. SaltyBoatr 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you're starting to convince me that the incident is notable but not necessarily the person. If this has caused a zeitgeist movement in regards to hate crimes, it might be better to refocus the article more around the incident and not Tiffany Adler herself. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), Tiffany Adler still doesn't meet the requirements as the articles all focus on the incident and not on her. It's a subtle distinction, yes, but an important one. None of the articles focus on Tiffany Adler herself, but focus on the "Hate Crime" she's of which she's been accused. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standards of Wikipedia:Notability (people) are: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.. These conditions have been met. SaltyBoatr 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited five six examples[17][18] of evidence which support 'notability'.SaltyBoatr 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP and i wrote the article so well I'm not even being bias!
  • This is straight from WP:BIO
Multiple features in credible news media.

[1] [2] [3] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Note that at least three of those sources repeat the same text. CloudNine 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heres a few, i might have repeated 2.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Extensively covered in the LGBT media[reply]

Strong delete Even stronger delete (see below), I have no idea what is supposed to be notable about this article, conviction or not. It was covered in the local media in Pacifica, so what? I live in Bexleyheath, and dozens of news items are covered in our local media every week, none of them notable, or interesting. Neither is this one. Jdcooper 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:Notability. The standard is not whether you find it notable, the Wikipedia notability standard is coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. Those conditions are clearly met in this instance. SaltyBoatr 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to lobby me on my talk page, certainly doesn't reek of trying to shape wikipedia to push a particular agenda. I still see absolutely no evidence of this minor breach of the peace being noteworthy outside the small, apparently uneventful, niche of California it was committed. Coverage in any other areas of America? Or mainstream (non-local) media? Wikipedia is not a compendium of local news stories from around the world. Jdcooper 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but you do not mention a basis in Wikipedia policy. Could you point to Wikipedia policy violations forming the basis of your opinion? SaltyBoatr 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this article. Do we then have an article on Mr Tombe? We do not, because, despite coverage in the media (bearing in mind this is the BBC, rather than the Somewhere in California Chronicle) the story would not be considered to have enough mainstream interest, outside those in Hai Malakal, those involved with marriage lawmaking in Sudan, or those involved in goat welfare, or whatever. You may (or at least should) say my article on Mr Tombe would be allowed to stay, if I wrote it, since it has media coverage, but you and I know it would be deleted. Then consider this article. Amariah Linton does not get an article, despite being convicted of a more weighty crime than Tiffany Adler is set to be (this story would also have been covered in dozens of other publications, including the Evening Standard, and possibly some nationals). We do not cover all crimes. Thousands of crimes are covered by local publications every day, how is this different? Jdcooper 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply, but find it ultimately subjective, and WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective. Do you have objective reasons to delete this article? SaltyBoatr 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of articles is subjective, the notability is not. We avoid subjectivity by avoiding recentism and avoiding personal bias, not just in what we write but which articles we push to be kept. Keeping this article would be the most absurd act of recentism, as well as bowing to the POV of two editors who are pushing harder than all the rest, lobbying talk pages and responding to every vote, almost suggesting conflict of interest. Do you have any objective reasons to keep this article? Jdcooper 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You answered my question with a question, not an answer. By the way, avoiding recentism is not a Wikipedia policy. I have no conflict of interest, after all I am just asking that Wikipedia policy be followed. I ask again, do you have any objective reasons (based upon Wikipedia policy) to delete this article? SaltyBoatr 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no longer care - keep your local news story if it means that much to you, WP:PAPER after all, but this sets a bizarre precedent. "MAN TRIPS, SUES COUNCIL! 'They should have done more to keep our pavements even' says bricklayer Gary, 48, of Catford" - read all about it on Wikipedia! Jdcooper 01:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I'm still not totally convinced of the notability of the person as the coverage seems to be more incidental than anything else, but without information on the sources SaltyBoatr mentioned it's impossible to judge. I still say that the article should be renamed as it seems to focus more on the incident than the person. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are four credible independent and reliable sources:[23][24][25][26] meeting the policy requirements of WP:Notable. The print edition of Pacifica Tribune newspaper has limited online presence, and my printed paper copies have been recycled at this point in time, so I am relying upon my memory. Regardless, the four citations above are sufficient to meet WP:Notability. SaltyBoatr 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm no longer pushing for deletion. My argument now is simply that the focus of the article should be on the incident and not the person (as that's what the focus of the sources is on), but that's something which can be relegated to editing at a later date. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many hate crimes are severely underreported by the news media IMHO. I agree that maybe renaming and relocating to an article on hate crimes, or hate crimes against gays, might be a good solution. But I think it is a notable article for having occurred here in the San Francisco Bay Area, considered a bastion of liberal thinking...not so.--Komunysta 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much as it's tempting to vilify the subject on a popular website, we can't have an article for every minor hate crime that occurs everywhere, especially when the subject hasn't even been convicted yet. According to this [27] there were 7,271 known offenders of hate crimes in the USA alone in the single year of 1999 (1,376 homophobic), and I bet that figure's increased since. EliminatorJR Talk 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but you do not mention a basis in Wikipedia policy. Could you point to Wikipedia policy violations forming the basis of your opinion? SaltyBoatr 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. WP:NOTE includes "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.". All we have here is local coverage. See also "Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable" (also from WP:NOTE). This incident is local. EliminatorJR Talk 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that EliminatorJR 'policy based opinion' given above be evaluated in context of the section from which he/she selectively quotes, WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective, starting with "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations..." In short, this article does meet the objective criteria for WP:Notability, and that the EliminatorJR rejection reason: 'what we have hear is local coverage' is subjective, not objective. SaltyBoatr 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*strong strong really strong bulletproof keep per everything ive said, no one has come up with any compelling reasons based on actual policy that this article should be removed except for their own personal opinions. can we close this ludacrous discussion and keep the article allready?T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 04:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC) * Editor (involved in article) has already !voted once. EliminatorJR Talk 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment, when arguing for inclusion, the burden of proof is on you. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an almanac of crimes. Surely you would not argue that every topic covered in a reliable media source is notable enough for an article? Reliable sources are necessary for notability, but not sufficient. Please see my examples above with my delete vote to see what i mean. The single most important rule in deletion process is that every article be treated on its own merits. Obviously someone somewhere has some massive concern over this article existing, for whatever reason that may be, please do not misrepresent policy to backup your personal bias. Jdcooper 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of your (so far) two "keep" posts do you expect to be counted, this one or this one? Both of them? — Æ. ✉ 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't expect either to be counted, because this is not a popular vote, nor a vote at all, i hope you look up deletion policy and get educated about it. The strengh and validity of the arguements and their relationship to Wikipedia policy like WP:BIO and WP:Notability are what this article will be judged by, by the sysop., if you must know i didnt think my first one was clear and i think i didnt sign it, it looked to me as if it would look like a vote with no explanation which would cause it to be disregardedT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely minor incident in the grand scheme of things, not encyclopedic in the long term. FCYTravis 05:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTABILITY "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, and a doubt whether coverage on every notable homophobic crime that takes place is appropriate - Wikipedia is not a crime database nor a newspaper. I don't appreciate lobbying on my talk page, and why do SaltyBoatr and Qrc2006 have to respond to every delete vote? Surely the strength of their arguments will convince the AFD closer? CloudNine 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. My need to 'respond' has been in good faith, intended to foster better understanding of the arguments and clarify which are objectively based upon WP:Policy and which are based upon subjective personal opinion. SaltyBoatr 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in the u.s. supreme court, lawyers make predominantly written arguements, on wikipedia discussion pages, whats it called again oh yeah DISCUSSION sorry for shouting but yes discussion page, hmm silly me, sorry for participating in the discussion, and a word of advice, if you dont want me to respond to your comments dont discuss your points of view on a discussion page with me, because call me crazy but i tend to do the logical action of participating in a page whose purpose is back-and-forth disccsion, this page is not a voting page, vote are not counted. and as for the validity of my arguements, read other users comments, some have been convinced after having been showed sources which they were unaware of. and gowsh-assume bad faith why dont ya? and as for the comments about my comments on other peoples pages, the fact that many said this article was too minor made me think that they wouldnt be back and therefore be unaware of any discussion here so i said hi on your talk pages, clearly a foolish and inaprpropriate action, how dare i talk to people on their talk pages, the nerve i have. as for my comment right here which will no doubt be labeled a tangent by one of the many unwavering deletion nazis abound ill say it first ok fine its a tangent, this is a duscussion i dont think whispers or monosylabic sound bite will suffice.71.142.69.128 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a minor incident. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Wikipedia is not the place to right the wrongs against one group or another. IMHO, this story will not stand out as notable in three months, when countless other similar hate crimes have occurred. - BierHerr 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am trying to better understand your reasoning, please clarify: I do not see 'minor incident' in WP:Notability, where to you see this criteria in WP:Policy? I see that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper is not actually the policy of Wikipedia, do you agree? How do you conclude that this article is intended to 'right the wrongs against one group or another'? Where do you find your 'police blotter' and 'three month' tests in WP:Policy? Thanks in advance for your answers. SaltyBoatr 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Notability gives a guideline that a notable person should have "Multiple features in credible news media." Tiffany Adler is the subject of exactly one article in the local news sources listed in the article. Most of those articles give no more insight into the event than a police blotter would. This, to me, shows that this is a minor incident and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. That is my interpretation. The other statements I made are not meant to be policy. They are meant to be my opinion, which should be quite valid given that this is a discussion. You appear to have a very keen interest in this article, and wish to have it kept. That is also noted in the record. However, my opinion is still Delete. - BierHerr 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful reply, though you mention 'exactly one article', indeed there are four. SaltyBoatr 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: four sources, but only one article written in each source, for a total of four articles. - BierHerr 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments by Bierherr and CloudNine appear false or muddled. There are many independent credible sources for this topic. The pertinent criteria, per WP:Notability, is: Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". In this case, attracting the notice of six major local independent credible sources who found the topic worthy. The sources are:
1) Palo Alto Daily News, an independent credible newspaper.
2) KTVU, an independent television station, a FOX affiliate.
3) The San Francisco Examiner, an independent newspaper.
4) KPIX, an independent television station, a CBS affiliate.
5) Also, the San Mateo Daily Journal, [28], an independent newspaper
6) Also, coverage on Inside Bay Area, an independent newservice.
This clearly meets the policy standard for notability of Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these sources copy each other from what I've read, making them useless for reference purposes. CloudNine 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am compelled to remind co-editors that the question at hand is WP:BLP and WP:Notability, not 'reference purposes'. The objective WP:BLP issues have been now been resolved through diligent editing, and the objective WP:Notability policy standards have been met. It doesn't matter if there is some repetition of material between the articles and it does not render the source material totally useless for reference purposes. Indeed the duplication is evidence that independent credible journalist have evaluated the topic again and again and reached similar professional judgments that it is notable. The repetition corroborates the notability. SaltyBoatr 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "repetition," it's simply a local (probably Bay Cities News Service) wire story being reposted on several web sites. There's no evidence that it's been picked up by the Associated Press or given any sort of broader coverage outside the San Mateo peninsula. FCYTravis 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of those criteria, 'can't be local', 'can't be wire story', 'can't be reposted', 'must make it on Associated Press' in WP:Notability. I must conclude that they are from your own personal and subjective opinion. And, WP:Note#Notability_is_not_subjective. SaltyBoatr 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to double-count "references" which are exactly the same. FCYTravis 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bierherr, who notes that there are four non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, so this unquestionably meets WP:N. The article is free of BLP concerns, it does not pass judgment, it merely attributes what the media reported. There's a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, but there's no question that the article meets our notability guidelines. — coelacan — 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My point was that these four sources gave very shallow coverage, and that each newspaper only wrote one article. If a person was notable, one would expect multiple stories in each source. WP:N reminds us to consider the depth of coverage, and I think this coverage was too shallow to merit keeping a separate article. - BierHerr 15:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that we have no reliable sources. Please tell us how much research you did before reaching your summary judgment. Your quibble may be that we do not immediately have enough reliable sources? That is subjective, and not policy based. Your moving this article without WP:Policy based explanation has a bad appearance of abuse of your administrator power, and you should explain your actions citing valid specific WP:Policy reasons to remove this bad appearance. Further, your choice of new title seems silly and demeaning of an alleged hate crime, how did you choose that title? Certainly not by using Wikipedia:Consensus. SaltyBoatr 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is absolutely true that we have no reliable sources which can provide context and information about Ms. Adler's life. In their absence, it is impossible to write a complete, balanced biography of a person. It does not take "administrator power" to move a page. As for the title, it's factual. A fruit-throwing incident. It's your POV that the "title seems silly and demeaning." We cannot choose the facts of the case. FCYTravis 02:30, 21 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Vonderhaar

[edit]
Sarah Vonderhaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Eliminated contestant on Top Model, and currently at a career crossroads. Interview as a direct outcome of having been eliminated from the show. The subject's notability is but WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. Ohconfucius 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellsongs

[edit]
Hellsongs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Part of a walled garden, other members of which are up for prod have been deleted. Bio of a Swedish metal cover band with no credible verification. Deiz talk 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Global Engagement

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

The result was delete. Belongs at Wookieepedia if anywhere. WjBscribe 00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khanar Barakel

[edit]
Khanar Barakel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entirely unreferenced article, nearly all Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Also, this suggests that this article is essentially fan fiction rather than a character from Star Wars canon. JavaTenor 10:41, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatko Krasni

[edit]
Zlatko Krasni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Please see [[31]] for further comments that lead to this AfD. The article was prodded earlier, but removed, so AfD as no notability-- EvokeNZ 10:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Assessing a poet's notability is not easy, but imo this one may just make the cut. The Ghits about him aren't many (they rarely are for contemporary poets from small countries) but they suggest that the guy is a respected poet (e.g. [32], [33], [34]). Anyways, the article needs to better sourced if it is to stay. Stammer 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I put in the some info from the Spanish page you found, as well as something from a conference in Freiberg, Germany which seems to imply that he is a department chair at the University of Belgrade. I think that he is notable, if these sources are considered ok. I'd still like to see a more credible source. "Slatko Krasni" gives one Ghit, are there any other spellings one should look for? Smmurphy(Talk) 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fail to see how articles can be put up for deletion which contain solid information about important matters like poetry while the English-language wikipedia abounds in such crap as self-congratulatory notes on such infamous topics as American baseball ... Anyway, I put in some more references, including the issue of Krasni's position within Serbian civil society, where his standing seems to be good; I do hope that more information is forthcoming from people actually capable of reading his work in the original. I strongly urge the editors to preserve this article and to prevent mere baseball fans from interfering in matters of poetry. (Klaus rabe 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment - I don't appreciate your insults, I do not like nor know much about baseball, and even if I did I don't see how that is a reflection on someone's character. I searched the Sr Wiki and it returned no hits either [[35]]. So if the poet is so famous, then how is it we cannot find anything about him? If you have a look at the first link in the translation page (in the AfD above), even a search in Serbian Google returns very few hits. The extra information you keep writing on this article lacks NPOV and is missing citations. = EvokeNZ 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There does seem to be some published works. The Library of Congress catalog has the following:
Krasni, Zlatko, 1951- Košuta u duši : soneti / Zlatko Krasni. 1997
Krasni, Zlatko, 1951- O melanholiji evropskog intelektualca : satirični i drugi ogledi / Zlatko Krasni. 1997
Krasni, Zlatko, 1951- Stazama zmijskog jezika / Zlatko Krasni. 1991
Krasni, Zlatko, 1951- Tvrđava / Zlatko Krasni. 1984

I have added these titles to the WP page. I think this certainly demonstrates his real existence. There may be a transliteration problem, for the British Library catalog, which transliterates a little differently sometimes, give nobody at all with the name Krasni. On the basis of the material already found and these four books, I think it's a Keep. DGG 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup and cite (more) sources. The initial article was mostly a free translation of the first link (in spanish) provided by Stammer above, and by EvokeNZ at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#Zlatko_Krasni (where I come from). That a Serbian poet is featured in a Colombian poetry event (that's what the said linked site is about) is a good hint pointing to international acknowlwedgment of his work. - Nabla 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, folks, there is much to be said for critical assessment, but my point was, dear EvokeNZ (no insult was intended), that there seems to be a huge heap of rubbish in wikipedia once you just hit the "surprise button" and wait for anything useful; while even a short entry about a poet of some standing, even if clearly not nobel material, should be given a welcoming nod and not awake the sort of annihilation instincts that sadly fail to reduce the rubbish-heap in the case of BASEBALL or of totally irrelevant hollywood b-movies. so please accept that zlatko krasni exists and has survived even his latest illness; as it is, there being a lot of cranks about, his actual address and telephone numbers could not possibly be publicized. but don't worry, I have them in my notebook. of course it is interesting to find that zlatko's name does not appear more often on serbian websits; but just you try and find such things as programmes of writers conferences etc., people there certainly seem to be lagging behind in these things. but writers, unlike gangsters, do not profit from being bombed, as you may realize. (Klaus rabe 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    • The fact that you have his personal details in your address book confirms that your additions to the article lack NPOV. We need references for the information listed. This has nothing to do with whether it's a known poet or not, it's to do with finding any information to liste on the page. If all we have to go on is your personal knowledge, then it's not good enough. - EvokeNZ 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to EvokeNZ about this; look at his talk-page. His annihilation instincts go a little far, I think; he seems to be provoked by my comments. This is unfortunate and I apologize for any pique that I hqave caused him to feel, publicly. But please ask him to explain his attack on this article; I for my part should welcome any improvement, by some Bosnian editor from Sarajevo, maybe? Or by someone who reads Serbian, which I don't. I cannot do much more than what I did so far. (Klaus rabe 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Looking back, I think the problem is unfamiliarity. That isn't a reason to delete, but it's still in good faith. DGG 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to the note with pointing Klaus to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - EvokeNZ 06:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean up and Reference. I now accept that the article can stay, however unreferenced tags must stay until the article has been cleaned up with citations and correct tone for an encyclopedia. Obviously and poetry reflects.. are personal judgements not those of an encyclopedia.EvokeNZ 06:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that some information beyond the rather biased and scanty material that was here before has been supplemented and cleaned up. I'm the one who said I could find next to nothing about the guy using any of the normal routes, and not even in Serbian, so thanks DGG for finding his works from the LCC. I hope that the article can be cleaned up so that it attains an encyclopedic level instead of the having links to German wikipedia articles stuck in the middle of text on the English wikipedia and the first paragraph needs to be cleaned up so that all the non-subject sentences are taken out or given subjects. I still wonder though why this guy is almost unknown on the Internet if he's published so much. -Yupik 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are all his books self-published? Many people have been deleted for that in the past. -Yupik 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for helping me on - beyond controversy, which was unintentional; of course, EvokeNZ is perfectly right about the problem of living persons: for instance, I should have avoided pointing to the poem published on the pro-Milosevic website since I am quite sure that it was put there without the writer's consent, but seeing that so much pressure was put up for references on the web ... Anyway, the topic cannot be avoided. But on this as on other topics concerning this article, there undoubtedly exists far better material; as for the references being in German ... sorry, but this world is predominantly not English-speaking: to limit references to English sources would radically diminish the credibility and reliabiloity of the English wikipedia. As for Youpik's question, you are right there, but Krasni is a recognized voice and has never been self-published (which, in some cases - for instance that of British poet James Fenton - would not indicate an absence of recognition, but a move against the way that literature is edited at a particular point in history; the same, of course, applies to Zamizdat publications). I do hope the article will be further developed by others; I must admit that I did not do any kind of research before meeting the person concerned since I rely on fist-hand impressions when I decide about whether I want further contact with a poet or not. (Klaus rabe 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think that any of us care that *references* (i.e., in a reference list at the end of the article in the normal fashion) would be in German, but links to German-language articles in the German wikipedia from the English wikipedia, I for one, object to even though I am a polyglot. If you would like to have them translated, please add them to Wikipedia:Translation, although the German community seems to be overwhelmed already by the translations there. If you have problems using the Translation request template, let me know and I'll list the articles for you as it is not the clearest of templates. -Yupik 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - no consensus to delete this. - Richard Cavell 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BattleCry

[edit]
BattleCry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Video game article with no assertion of notability, no references. Mikeblas 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well it can be referenced as existing: .com/DP/cmf/listing.cmf?released=1989, but I do think it's dubious in terms of notability. Maybe an article on the company that created it would be acceptable. FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep uh... an arcade game? An actual arcade game? Much more notable than most games that get AfD'd - this at least likely had some visibility. However, I do concur that the article is extremely low on details; if deleted now, I'd welcome it back with more details and better references. And yes, article on the company would be nice. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources or assertation of notability. ffm ✎talk 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Keep. Unsourced articles that can be sourced are not grounds for deletion. Notability is also established by external sources. A simple Google search turns up over 750,000 mentions of a BattleCry game, although some of those hits undoubtedly access unrelated pages. Give the creator-user a warning, perhaps provide "him" some links to Wiki Guidelines on writing about things like computer games, with a chance to add some external references - perhaps some critical reviews by gaming magazines, sales (or downloading) figures, popularity among active gamers, the sort of thing one might find at, say Mortal Kombat or Sonic the Hedgehog. We should not bite the newbies when they make an article about their favorite computer game, as long as the game is available for sale or downloading by anyone, and not just made up in school one day or something. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 April 2007 (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. Sr13 (T|C) ER 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide method

[edit]
Suicide method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to serve no purpose other than to act as a magnet for people who want to add unencyclopedic "how-to" information, which is a clear example of WP:NOT.

After various editors have now removed this extraneous content, what remains appears to be redundant, since every one of the topics covered seems to be a mode of death (asphyxiation, exsanguination, electrocution, death by gunshot, etc.) which already has its own detailed article elsewhere (or should have one), and a top-level summary of all known methods already exists at the Suicide#Suicide_methods subsection.

I propose that any remaining useful content in this article be aggressively refactored into the relevant cause-of-death-specific articles, each of which should then be briefly referenced in the short list given in the Suicide#Suicide_methods section, and that this article be turned into a redirect to that subsection. The Anome 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? An AfD is about whether an article should be deleted. All manner of other edits up to and including merging and redirecting are done without needing to go through AfD (not that I believe merging would be appropriate in this case). Bryan Derksen 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep it encyclopedic, yes, but putting it into the main article might make it a bit too big. That said, I'm not entirely hostile to an aggressive merge and redirect. I'll keep tabs on this discussion. Abeg92contribs 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting putting its content into the main suicide article: I'm talking about putting any useful non-duplicative content into the individual cause-of-death articles, and leaving references to them in the "suicide methods" subsection. -- The Anome 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating censorship: I'm recommending refactoring into a very short subsection of suicide, and appropriately detailed treatments in cause-of-death subarticles, and then turning this article into a redirect. -- The Anome 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comments above: this article as-is is a compendium of duplicated information that could better be developed in the more specific articles. -- The Anome 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I knew this AfD would come the moment I saw the article was on the mailing list. This is an entirely reasonable subject to have an encyclopedia article about, it can be done in an informative and NPOV manner. Merging into suicide wouldn't be a good idea, that article is already very large and too much would need to be cut from this article to make it fit. Renaming to List of suicide methods might be warranted. Bryan Derksen 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored, and I would strongly contest the idea that any article can kill someone. Articles don't kill people, people do. DickClarkMises 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, anyone wishing to kill themself probably isn't going to consult an article online about how to go about it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Newyorkbrad. Sometimes there are things more important in life than keeping uncensored. Sorry, I have a friend that was close to suicide and told me she came to this site to look up information. Part Deux 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Work to change the policy if you don't agree with it. There is nothing illegal about providing this information. To exclude this information for personal reasons is clearly a violation of all sorts of policies, including WP:NPOV. Information is not evil, folks—not any of it! DickClarkMises 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again you've missed the point. I just said that there are more important things in life sometimes than upholding an ideal. Not illegal, but not ethical either. And sorry if I'm emotional, but when I have a friend who nearly is no longer here because of the information presented on this page, then yes, information is evil. Would you post information on where Jews during the Holocaust, so anybody (including authorities) could look it up? Part Deux 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those two examples are completely not related. The article is not trying to advocate suicide. Besides, you couldn’t provide reliable sources about the location of the Jews anyway. It would be unsourced and removed as such. I’m not a big fan of the article either (I don’t think it’s written well). If it gets deleted, it should be because it is not a good article not because of moral objections. --Cyrus Andiron 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aggressively refactor details of the "mechanics" of the means of death ("Burning to death can take several minutes to several hours...", etc.) into their respective articles, per nom, and (not per nom) restructure other content here by topic rather than by method. I reluctantly accept the need for this page to stop the suicide article from becoming too long, but it should focus on topics like the relative frequency of different methods, differences between culture and time period in suicide methods, etc. A brief list of significant suicide methods at the start of the article would be acceptable, but providing detail on a per-method basis is (a) an unnecessary duplication of more specific articles, and (b) worryingly close to a "how to commit suicide" guide. EALacey 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an encyclopedic article about an encyclopedic and notable topic. Merging is not good either, as the best way to present information on suicide methods is to collect it into one page, with {{main}} templates where further information is available. Prolog 21:56, 17 April 2007 (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 This article has changed significantly since first nominated. Result is KEEP.. Navou banter 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Comprehensive School

[edit]
Barry Comprehensive School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure how this satisifies notability criterion in WP:N. Contested prod. Navou banter 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator is correct in questioning the notability. However there does not seem to be consensus within the community on how to handle schools. That being said, I would err conservatively and preserve the page. I would suggest someone work to improve the article.JodyB 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Delete After rethinking my position and re-reading prior debate, I realize that a lack of consensus means there is no consensus to make an exception from WP:NOTE for schools. This one does not seem to meet it. Therefore, I change to delete. JodyB 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per what has already been said. jpmck 15:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I know we've been told that OBEs are not necessarily considered notable,in the UK, but how many of them go to heads of comprehensive schools? DGG 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the head of this high school been awarded an OBE, a notable event, Estyn, Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales, has given this school a Grade 1 overall assessment, the highest available and this is the most improved school in Wales for the third year running. TerriersFan 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep per WP:A and WP:N. This one is tricky. The fact that the head is an OBE may mean that he is notable, but it does not mean that the school is notable. If he were managing a gas station, would that gas station be notable? (Note also that there is no article about the head himself.) A Grade 1 assessment may or may not make the school notable, but I can't assess that without knowing more about that program(me). I would think that However, being named the most improved school in Wales by the national education department three years in a row would makes this school notable, but I am uncomfortable relying on the school's own informational material as the sole source of this fact, and that fact is now properly sourced. (By the way, the school's report does not indicate who so named the school most improved. Was it the Prince of Wales, or Dafydd down the street?) There should be plenty of press coverage to cite in support of this fact, and I'll happily change to keep if that is provided. Nice work TF! --Butseriouslyfolks 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have sourced the 'most improved' statement for the third year to the schools inspectorate, added two cites for the second year and added yet another, earlier, award. TerriersFan 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:TerriersFan has now made substantial improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion. The notability of the school has been established and suitable references have been provided. Dahliarose 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has been greatly improved. The school appears notable. The article is comprehensive enough. LordHarris 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thought it was agreed that High Schools are normally notable, even if the article is a stub. A few weeks ago some one nominated a Grammar School, obviously not knowing what one was. The award of OBE (not merely MBE) to the head would certainly be sufficient to make it notable anyway. Peterkingiron 16:29, 22 April 2007 (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 while there is a fairly even split of opinions, notability hasnt been established, given that hes withdrawn[36]. from the senate candidacy more unlikely to occur. Gnangarra 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Powell (Australian politician)

[edit]
Mark Powell (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not a public figure of any note Carsick101 05:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a vanity entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.42.129 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 April 2007

  • Weak Delete Non-notable party functionary. Article is entirely unsourced. I don't think it is entirely a vanity project as it has been around for a while and been the subject of numerous edits. Mattinbgn/ talk 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference. As President as the national youth wing of a major political party, he seems notable enough for mine. A Google News search for "Mark Powell" Liberal gets over 100 results so there is plenty of third-party coverage see [37]. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, national president of the Young Libs? Definitely notable. Lankiveil 10:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep National president of Young Libs + 3rd on the Senate ticket (for Liberals) for the upcoming Federal election = a shoe-in as a Senator following the election. Garrie 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is being national president of the Young Liberals any more notable that a junior national representative sportsperson? Those with more interest in politics may have a better idea but I would say not. Most junior national reps do not meet WP:BIO. Also, at this stage, regardless of his chance of success he is still only a candidate for office and being a candidate alone is surely not enough to make him notable or otherwise, with the federal election approaching there will be articles en masse about election candidates, most of whom will be forgotten a week after the election. --Mattinbgn/ talk 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I agree, he's not notable for his candidature. Third on the Senate ticket is only really a remote chance of election for a Liberal candidate in this political environment. But as National President of the Young Libs? I'd say that the Young Liberals definitely qualify as a notable political organisation, and Powell is an important enough figure in their workings (ie, not a figurehead) to be notable himself. Lankiveil 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment For non-Australian audiences - there are 6 spots, so for the 3rd spot to win requires the party in question to get at least 40% of the vote. Considering the Nationals are competition for that 3rd spot, as are a resurgent Labor (currently over 50% in opinion polls), Family First and the Greens, the chances are remote.
  • Delete Not notable yet, although most likely will be at some future point. The Young Liberals is basically just a branch organisation within the party, and while the national president occasionally appears in media reports and so on, he is never the primary subject of those reports per WP:BIO, he has no actual power or standing, and is not an elected politician. Orderinchaos 04:02, 21 April 2007 (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 redirect to Pac Man. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 01:20Z

Pac dots

[edit]
Pac dots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A wonderful topic for an article, but sadly I think all that needs to be said (if anything) is here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta run before that melon disappears. Peeper 13:01, 17 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beasly and Tha Foolfatha

[edit]
Beasly and Tha Foolfatha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability has not been demonstrated using reliable sources; a Google search on "Tha Foolfatha" produces 14 hits A. B. (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2007 (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, article is a WP:DISRUPT creation. --Coredesat 01:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phobomania

[edit]
Phobomania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per fobomania - Non attributable neologism - Tiswas(t/c) 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

had I not writen that it was invented by the Belgium filosopher Matthias Storme ? But cause wiki has an insulting article "islamophobia" maybe can an "independant" also give room to other opinions ? Limboot 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes. Islam critisism is racism-related. You are writing in a webpage where "islamophobia" is classifies as "discrimination" so your convincing is 0,00000000000 . Maybe you can answer why an other opinion about "islamophobia" may not be heard. ? Limboot 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe you can read dutch wiki where an article about phobomania is not a problem . And further on one has the right only to make an internal link (e.g. phobomania and islamophilia) in an excisting article (e.g. islamophobia))but you are deleting it Limboot 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article fails those guidelines on the Dutch Wiki as well. EliminatorJR Talk 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is in violation of WP:NEO. Furthermore this article may have been made in bad faith. User Limboot may have made this page as a response to Islamophobia. Obviously Wikipedia does not allow counter articles which have the sole purpose of responding to other articles. Limboot said "Wiki has an abusive article about 'islamophobia"' even brought as "discrimination". So wiki has to tolorate other opinions, imho" in the talk. Also see [38]. --Agha Nader 01:56, 19 April 2007 (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. --Coredesat 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kannan Navaratnam

[edit]
Kannan Navaratnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable biography of a cricketer which has already been speedy deleted on 3 prior occasions. I searched unsuccessfully for this cricketer's history on the official Warwickshire County Cricket Club website and I also found no matching hits for "+Kannan +Navaratnam +cricket" on Google. LittleOldMe 13:42, 17 April 2007 (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 redirected to Virginia Tech massacre. Friday (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Clark

[edit]
Ryan C. Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This person is completely not notable other than the fact that he died recently. // Sean William 13:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not independently notable. Information can be put in parent article and split to a "victims" article later. StuffOfInterest 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable on his own. Information can put into the main article or put into a "victims" page. 24.187.132.100 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also, in response to arguments on the talkpage that he may prove to have played a key role in the events, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Does not meet our notability requirements. Clear precedents with victims of other shooting/bombings/natural distasters. WjBscribe 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable on his own, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Include in a victims section of the main article. Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info to the main article (Most of the info in the article is not relevant. It's an obit.) He's a small player in a major story. Friday (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Noclip 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Jackk 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable aside from recent events, fails WP:BIO. Could be merged into main article although I don't think we need that much bio information on the deceased. --Cyrus Andiron 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - This is process for the sake of process. Do you really know enough facts to delete at this point? Articles are built over time. Let the article be built and decide what to do with it in a week or so. Too may people here are more interested in voting and process than adding useful facts to the encyclopedia. Stop spending your time wasting the time of people who are trying to add sourced material that our readers what to read. WAS 4.250 14:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the issues I have with articles like these is that after a while, the article begins to sound like the person did absolutely nothing in their life other than die in a shooting. There aren't many reliable sources (if any) about this person's life prior to the shootings. // Sean William 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, exactly. This won't change. We know about him because of his involvement in the story, nothing else. This is a very obvious candidate for a mention in the main article, not a seperate article. Friday (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually out of respect for our editors we should handle this as quickly as possible. Why waste their time adding details to an article which may not exist in 5 days? The simple fact is there is zero evidence this person is currently noteable. He may or may not become noteable as a result of his actions, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball and presuming he will is silly Nil Einne 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with Friday. I realize this is may sound insensitive, but the only reason this man is in the news is because he died. Had he been off campus during the shooting, we wouldn't be discussing him. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind waiting to delete or merge. There really isn't going to be any more news is there? Unless they discover the cure for cancer locked away in his dorm room, I'm not sure how he is going to become any more notable. --Cyrus Andiron 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, as with G. V. Loganathan. --Czj 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The few sentences in this article regarding the massacre could easily be incorporated into the Virginia Tech massacre article. The rest of the article is merely an obituary and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Stebbins 14:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Although his killing was part of a very sad incident, it does not really justify an article here. --MoRsE 14:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but consider un-merging if enough information becomes available to later create a stand-alone article (doubtful but possible). --ElKevbo 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if in the future it can be established that he's noteable then recreate. At the current time this is far from clear and wikipedia is not a crystal ball (note this is not the same thing as the professor cases where the professors may or may not be independently notable) Nil Einne 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with no prejudice against a separate article at some future time if it is demonstrably necessary. I find such need unlikely, but this search term needs to be preserved for the matter, and thus a redirect/merge is needed for GFDL purposes. -- nae'blis 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - without preaching too much, I'd like to say that we live in a really screwed up society where killers get more recognition than their victims. It does not hurt Wikipedia at all for there to be mentionings of the deceased - at least on the incident page, if not in a separate article. If the murderer gets an entire page, notable only as a piece of shit, then why don't the victims receive the same courtesy. At the same time, I recognize that there are many victims of all sorts of crimes that don't get mentioned, so why should these people get any special attention? Thus my vote for a merge. At the same time, I think that the article on the killer should be merged as well. He deserves no special recognition. Godheval 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as per above. Jauerback 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand people feeling compassion for the victims and wanting to participate somehow in an event the news channels are following with breathless round-the clock coverage by creating lots of articles about the victims, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he can be mentioned appropriately in the main article. Apparently none of them are notable except for getting shot when they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ditto for the other victims. We do not need to wait and collect facts to delete an article: the process works the other way. When multiple independent articles have been printed over a period of time in reliable sources, THEN consider individual articles if there is too much encyclopedic material to fit in the main article.(edit conflict 4 times) Edison 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, redirect, and add any needed information to main article. TomTheHand 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BlueLotas 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This process is not a vote. Please give policy-based reasons to support your opinion. WjBscribe 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He was the first person killed in the massacre, and this article has plenty of references. BlueLotas 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it time to call this one WP:SNOW. --StuffOfInterest 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only notable in the context of the massacre. Keeping his name on the main article's list of victims should be sufficient.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia (should be). Ryan C. Clark isn't relevant in an encyclopedic way. Marcus Cyron 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booker and Hawk

[edit]
Booker and Hawk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This "show" doesn't even feature on IMDb - and that's a very low hurdle. This looks like a film student creation - Tiswas(t/c) 14:04, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Virtual Aviation Organization

[edit]
International Virtual Aviation Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Unsourced, apparantly non-notable (no claims to any form of notability to anyone outside the group). Fails WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: printed articles can still be cited (for instance, with Template:Cite news); we don't need to link to everything. --Scott Wilson 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Within it's own field (Flight Simulation) it is notable. Although I agree the page could do with some clean-up and maybe a review. -- Rehnn83 Talk 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IVAO is notable in its own field, it is mentioned on several items in its own field, like virtual aviation related websites. Agree that a review, restructuring and probably source citing of the article is needed. TheSpecial 10:38, 22 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OminOS

[edit]
OminOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for announcements of alpha versions. The product that is the subject of the page is an operating system that has received no outside coverage. All of the references and external links mentioned in the article ultimately arise from a user Omin0us, who may or may not also be User:Omin0us (talk). Additionally, it's an alpha version; it's not even a released piece of software. No reliable sources, no demonstrated notability. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kadudal

[edit]
Kadudal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a colloquial nonsense page for cocaine, I would say delete and redirect the term, but the page itself is useless. Nekohakase 14:57, 17 April 2007 (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 all. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Window

[edit]
Dirty Window (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information, or original research. None of these songs have any real significance, and there is no backing proof to claims as to what each song means. jpmck 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Invisible Kid (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My World (Metallica song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shoot Me Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweet Amber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All Within My Hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) jpmck 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Veinor (talk to me) 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St.Kusler

[edit]
St.Kusler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article reads like nonsense. I could find no St. Kusler with a Google search. JohnBagwell 15:30, 17 April 2007 (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 another hoax. DS 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James McPherson (novelist)

[edit]

Suspected hoax. Hoax tag was removed twice by 69.120.38.103 (talk · contribs) without comment. As I explained on the article talk page, the article has no references and I find much of the information in it suspect. It states he was awarded the Medal of Honor, but he does not appear on the Army's list of recipients. Google searches for "James Campbell MacPherson" and "James Campbell McPherson" (it is spelled both ways in the article) results in one hit each, one the wikipedia article itself, and the other a Canadian university's alumni site. Also no non-wikipedia Google hits on his book titles, McPherson's Fact on the Death Disease and My Life:James McPherson. jwillburtalk 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the related discussions on Jacob MacPherson, Russell McPherson, and James McPherson II below. jwillburtalk 17:54, 17 April 2007 (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, early close due to obvious consensus. Given the current visibility of articles related to the shooting, keeping this AfD open any longer isn't going to do any good. Sandstein 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Granata

[edit]
Kevin Granata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar to other articles about people who were killed in this horrible event, he is only notable for his death. └Jared┘┌talk┐  16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, Granata was one of the top researchers throughout the USA in his field.[41] Check Wikipedia:Notability (academics): he passes at least the first two. Nyttend 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. There wouldn't have been an article about him had he not died. It's unfortunate but true. └Jared┘┌talk┐  16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing on Granata in that article anymore. Gdo01 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per this Washington Post article, Granata was "one of the top five biomechanics researchers in the country" according to his department head. NawlinWiki 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there wasn't an article on him before, doesn't mean he doesn't qualify under WP:PROF. The question isn't whether the article was written because of the tragedy or not, it's whether he qualifies under notability criterion. Sasquatch t|c 17:12, 17 April 2007 (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. fishhead64 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stern Fan Network

[edit]
Stern Fan Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fansite bulletin board. No outside independent reliable sources given to prove notability. Only links are to its own forum pages. Page full of fancruft for the BB members, contributing nothing of value for an encyclopedia. —Ocatecir Talk 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that source constitutes trivial coverage as it only describes that members of the board have given death threats and says nothing about the notability of the board. If death threats lent notability to a message board almost every BB would have an article on wikipedia as they are pretty common due to the ability to remain anonymous on the internet. —Ocatecir Talk 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of trivial coverage is fairly clear as to what "trivial" means--basically directory content. This article, though minimally substantial, is substantial. A source does not need to state explicitly that an entity is notable--it is the existence of the source which makes the entity notable. Matchups 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am wondering if that also makes the article's subject Chaunce Hayden notable, since he received the death threats. I am also wondering what this UPI article could be a source for, outside of "somebody threatened somebody else." I'm not convinced this proves notability, but if it does, it is of little use to the article. El hombre de haha 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseFootnote 5 mentions that trivial coverage includes passing mentions in newspaper articles. That article is not about Stern Fan Network, it is about death threats, therefore it does not qualify as a source. Independent coverage does not mean simply being mentioned, it means being written about. —Ocatecir Talk 00:05, 21 April 2007 (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 yet another hoax. DS 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob MacPherson

[edit]

Unreferenced and I'm fairly certain completely spurious: Google for Jacob MacPherson and murder yields zero hits. Created by Marxus, the same user who created James McPherson (novelist), nominated above (Jacob is supposedly James's father, and each article contains a link to the other). It looks like it might be a good idea to vet every edit by Marxus, and also perhaps Ccaravello, who has contributed to several of the same pages. ShelfSkewed talk 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated both Russell and James II for deletion below. jwillburtalk 17:52, 17 April 2007 (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 deleted by Rama's arrow. YechielMan 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DynatOS

[edit]
DynatOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising - has previously had spam related to "DynatOS" removed from Operating system. Also see OminOS for related concern of unknown OS project pages. Jimmi Hugh 17:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, criterion G11 (and I'm tagging it such in the article). The "Getting Involved" section pushes it over the top for me: this article has left the realm of information and entered ad copy. Deletion through the AfD process also supported under the grounds of non-notable product, non-released, and absence of reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh ildirim

[edit]
Saleh ildirim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable person and the article is in really bad shape and a google search brings up next to nothing (neutral sources that is) except the same single article written by a freelance journalist, which can hardly be considered reliable.Azerbaijani 17:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written, objective and deals with a leading figure in an important political movement. It's referenced by an article written by a veteran respected journalist published in a big city daily city newspaper. The initiative to delete this article appears baseless and possibly politically motivated.--Megaforcemedia 15:03, 18 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vindle

[edit]
Vindle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term; WP:V issues: [44] Part Deux 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mycoskie

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

As written, does not meet WP:N; article had been tagged, but after an extended period, no effort has been made to establish notability. Amnewsboy 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No more notable than any other local broadcast journalist. Although there are articles on some local news reporters, most of those people have bigger credits to their names, so far as I can tell. Feeeshboy 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Contemporary Music Performance

[edit]
Institute of Contemporary Music Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Only editors have been User:ICMP and User:Theicmp, strongly suggesting a WP:COI; the article is solely intended for advertising. Very sparse Google hits at ~50, some of which are for another school of the same name in New York. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the creation of this AfD, one of the main contributors of the article has made some relevant comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Institute of Contemporary Music Performance and User talk:SpuriousQ#The Institute. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Thomas (New Zealand radio producer)

[edit]
Gareth Thomas (New Zealand radio producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability found in g-search or offered in article. Article was prodded and deleted, but has been recreated by the same editor. Kathy A. 15:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Heaney: Political Bias vs. Aestheticism of Literature

[edit]
Seamus Heaney: Political Bias vs. Aestheticism of Literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A lot of the information is a duplicate of Seamus Heaney, and the rest seems to be semi-political essays rather than encyclopaedic content. Ben W Bell talk 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:35, 17 April 2007 (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 redirected by Ohconfucius. YechielMan 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revik Delfin

[edit]
Revik Delfin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, there are no independent google hits, no google news hits, etc, etc. Claim to fame is being the lead of a fairly well known band, but has had nothing published about him/her (not even short online bios) and so therefore is not notable. User:Veesicle 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I could not find any credible sources of information on this subject. As a result of that, he fails the notability test. However, his band is notable enough for inclusion. I think if someone could find some information on him, maybe the article could be exapanded. --Cyrus Andiron 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:35, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doomed Nation Video Magazine

[edit]
Doomed Nation Video Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be advertising for a online publication of dubious notability. Gorgeous Ferns 14:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:35, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Junk Label

[edit]
The Junk Label (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about an independent record label cites no independent sources to establish notability. There are no relevant hits on Google News Archive or LexisNexis for for "The Junk Label", and Google doesn't seem to turn up anything more than a few directory listings. Appears to fail WP:CORP.

The article states that a group called Chichino (seemingly the only artist or band mentioned on their website) "reached number 41 in the Offical UK Indie Charts", but judging from press coverage the group is at best marginally notable. Searching GNA and LN for "Chichino" turns up a few mentions in lists of bands playing at concerts, a single paragraph of coverage from The Northern Echo that's part of an article headed "NEWS IN BRIEF - NORTH DURHAM NEWS", and an article from the Yorkshire Evening Post mentioning them as "shortlisted finalists" but not winners of a competition organised by the newspaper. In any case, there's no evidence that the group has conferred notability on the label. Delete. EALacey 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunato Caruso

[edit]
Fortunato Caruso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I do not believe the subject of this article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. He is a minor league player who's only claim to fame is to have won a junior award. He has never been a fully professional player nor has he played at the highest level of Australian rules football Mattinbgn/ talk 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as probable hoax. DS 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell McPherson

[edit]

Suspected hoax. See related AfDs for Jacob MacPherson and James McPherson (novelist) above, and for the nearly identical article James McPherson II below. Google searches reveal no Russell McPherson related to the Great Escape. jwillburtalk 17:45, 17 April 2007 (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 yet another hoax. DS 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James McPherson II

[edit]

Suspected hoax. See related AfDs for Jacob MacPherson, James McPherson (novelist), and the nearly identical article Russell McPherson above. Google searches reveal no James McPherson II related to the Great Escape. jwillburtalk 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Currie Johnstone

[edit]
Andrew Currie Johnstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. Nothing in Google for "Andrew Currie Johnstone", almost nothing for "Andrew C. Johnstone", however there appears to be another artist by the name of Andrew Johnstone, whose biography seems oddly to be vaguely similar to this article, although in terms of the factual content everything is pretty much different. I still say that this is a hoax.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:15, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 23:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turbulent Recordings

[edit]
Turbulent Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN label, fails WP:CORP, spam, etc Lugnuts 18:36, 17 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 02:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dofus

[edit]
Dofus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claims of notability, no reliable sources. I PRODded but the tag was removed for WP:ILIKEIT reasons. Corvus cornix 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read French, would you mind adding some of those sources to this article? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read French, but I've added some English language sources as well information on why this game is notable (3 million players, international awards, etc). Angela. 17:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If nothing else, it's being marked like a full, mainstream game - saw a full page advertisement for it in Edge (issue 175, page 25), It's just launched a UK Dedicated version, and has won Bets game and public choice awards at FlashForward 2006, as well as the audience award at IGF2006 - I can think of many other games with a poorer pedigree, that have articles. I think it's a case of it needing a better article, which can be built up. 81.149.182.210 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott kleeschulte

[edit]
Scott kleeschulte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I thought about tagging this as A7 speedy, but I've put this up for AfD because I don't think we have a precedent for missing persons. My concerns about this article is that (a) the subject is not proven notable (however sad the circumstances), (b) this page amounts to an advert for information and wikipedia is not a soapbox and (c) it appears to allege that someone was involved who has not been charged with any offence and is therefore potentially libelous. A1octopus 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, at least until there is a policy established on missing people which this article would violate. I also added a link to a StLtoday.com (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) article which mentions the Devlin investigation, so that wipes out any libel issues. By the way, I'm not the original author. Realkyhick 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All right, here is how I look at it. Right now, as a missing person, he is considered to be alive. As such, a biography on him must adhere to WP:BIO. This article does not have multiple non trivial sources that assert his notability, so it fails that test. There are external links that provide information, but nothing new has been uncovered since his disappearnace. If he is dead, then he is just another lost / kidnapped child that was never found. That does not make him notable, thousands of kids go missing every year. Wikipedia is not a missing persons network. --Cyrus Andiron 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I appreciate the sentiment and the extra effort to find the child, really I do, but existing Wikipedia policies (WP:BIO and WP:NOT) apply directly here, methinks. This is not the place to advertise even for a good cause, but I daresay very few people would see this article anyway. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyrus. If there are sources about this kid (as opposed to being solely about the fact that he disappeared) then that's one thing, but there aren't that many nine-year-olds who achieve independent notability.  RGTraynor  20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There are now more links so now there is no libel issue, plus it will make the family feel good knowing that after all this time people are still thinking of scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.255.42.217 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).— User:70.255.42.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Having re-read all our inclusion policies since I made this nomination, my interpretation of the notability on an alleged or actual kidnap victim and/or missing person would be as follows - The person would be notable if (a) Before they went missing they were notable (eg not simply notable because they are missing now) or (b) (in the case of a kidnapping) the kidnapper is notable (but that would only warrant details of the victim on the kidnapper's page) or (c) if the case itself has become notable or notorious. In this case, therefore, I can see no grounds for notability - the missing person isn't notable, there is no legally proven kidnapper, and the case itself is not notable outside the locale of the events because there is no criminal case (yet) in respect of this article's subject. A1octopus 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I note that the alleged (by the article) kidnapper is notable (Michael J. Devlin) but he is not the alleged kidnapper in law (hasn't been charged with this one). A1octopus 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think his links to Devlin, plus the reopening of the case with considerable coverage from multiple reliable media, make him notable. I also think that interpreting the guidelines to say that a kidnapped person must have been notable before the kidnapping doesn't make much sense; see Elizabeth Smart. Realkyhick 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coment: In the case of Elizabeth Smart the case itself is notable. We cannot accept the notability of this article's subject on the grounds of the case being notable because the only case concerning this person currently is that he is a missing person. The alleged criminal activities of Devlin will not apply to this person unless Devlin is charged and convicted of them. Otherwise we'd be doing "Trial by Wikipedia." A1octopus 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're not trying Devlin, we're merely reporting what legitimate press outlets have themselves reported, which is that Devlin is being possibly linked to this case. Realkyhick 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO. Corvus cornix 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A1octopus's arguments. --Stormie 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  • KEEP! per Realkyhick 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC) comments. Scott is notable at least in the St.Louis area after almost 19 years people still remember him not to mention all of the media attention he has gotten because of devlin — User:Kaylak07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from a Christian Citizen

[edit]
Letter from a Christian Citizen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Book is not notable under WP:BK or prominent among Wilson's works (it's too new to be considered such). --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: most of the sources border on trivial, and none serve a general audience (i.e. outside of devout Christians) in any case. David Mestel(Talk) 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable on its own account. Laurence Boyce 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Initially I edited the article to make it wiki-ish, but after reading WP:BK it appears I wasted my time. --Vince |Talk| 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per WP:BK Thunderwing 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirddave 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Thirddave I'm a bit confused why this would be considered for deletion simply becuase it is resourceful for a Christian audience. I am certain there are a number of similar entries on Wikipedia that would fall under this category. Could someone suggest some stronger reasons for deletion besides those reasons that don't sound biased? What are specific problems with the entries?[reply]
  • Delete though perhaps I would merge it as a note into the article on Harris's book. If this were considered important in any segment of the outside world it would have had some published reviews. DGG 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but make a note of its existence on the autor's page. The book cannot be notable in and of itself yet because (a) it wasn't the subject of massive media hype before it was published and (b) it hasn't been published for long enough to establish notability. If it becomes an multi-million selling international resource then the article can be reposted. A1octopus 13:14, 18 April 2007 (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. Keep consensus PeaceNT 06:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon & Kate Plus 8

[edit]
Jon & Kate Plus 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax. Created by sockpuppet of user who inserts hoax information in articles. Not speedily deleting because (1) there does seem to be such a TV show, and just possibly someone who knows something about it will be tempted to make this into a real page on the show, and (2) I know nothing about the subject - either new video games or reality tv shows - and wanted confirmation by someone who thinks they do. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it looks like a hoax. I've taken a look around the various gaming sites and found no information about the development of this game. No sources, no article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jwillbur. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the video game appears to have been a hoax, the article has been changed to be about the tv show, which does exist. I will add a bit more info to it. jwillburtalk 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but label as a stub (just a categorization issue, but I'm not going to bother if it gets deleted anyway). YechielMan 19:13, 20 April 2007 (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 per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:BIO, no assertion or demonstration of notability.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Milby

[edit]
Darren Milby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. A DJ who seems to only appear in connection with his employer. JodyB 20:00, 17 April 2007 (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 Thomas Allery (school student with no real assertion of notability) and RGSW Organ Recital Series (non notable series of school recitals). No consensus with regards Ian Venables and John Wilderspin, which should probably be the subject of fresh AfDs. WjBscribe 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Venables

[edit]
Ian Venables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable composer. I am convinced this man created the page himself. Only one person has edited it, and when I nominated it for speedy deletion, an IP address (him again?) removed it, making some changes to take away what was mostly just profuse praise of the subject. Still, he is not notable and as he created the page himself, it qualifies as vanity. Clavecin 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because 1. is a non-notable recital series based in a school; 2. is a school-child organist who is non-notable; 3. is an amateur organist who is non-notable. All three pages seem to have been created, and edited only (or overwhelmingly) by the same person who created 'Ian Venables', and the praise and mention of that man's compositions is profuse throughout them.:

RGSW Organ Recital Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thomas Allery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Wilderspin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment: A survey of the links on a directed UK Google search (to eliminate an eponymous soldier and Wiki mirrors) [45] show only 87 unique ones, which is pretty poor. As against that, he does seem to have some small reputation. Unfortunately, none of the links represent reliable, independent, published sources. Perhaps a backer of this article could find one, but the best I get are trivial mentions along the lines of Venables conducting concert X or musical group performing one of his works.  RGTraynor  20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most references to Ian Venables have now been removed from the articles. This should prevent them as being vainly. I have left a message on Clavecin talk page, regarding reasons why John Wilderspin's page should not be removed.

Overall, I believe that you are right in earmarking the RGSW Organ Recitals page. As it is not that important, it could possibly be merged with the RGSW page. Would that be possible/ viable? After all, as the article says, it is an important event in the school's calendar 81.158.2.82 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this page should remain. Ian Venables is a well known composer in the area. Much of the "vanity' has now been reduced; with hindsight it probably was over the top! Although a list of his compositions has not been added, this takes time; the page is new. It has been stated that only i have edited the article- the article is new, it takes a while for others to come. i will encourage others to edit it. Although I cannot prove it, I am not the subject of this article. Thomas Allery etc. The reason why I linked these articles together, was to make them stronger and more viable. Yes they all mention Venables' work, this is because I thought that this was a relevant point. I think that "John Wilderspin" should definitely remain. He is notable in the area, and the page is sourced from an independent, reliable source. if necessary, all references to the other pages can be removed.

  • Keep for a contemporary classical composer to have his recordings played on major channels is notable. There however ought to be reviews as well ,and they should be added.
Delete (actually in this case, merge, as suggested above) for the recital series, which does not warrant its own article.
Uncertain: Allery is a performer not a composer, and i think the inclusion would depend entirely on there being reviews. Notable performers get reviewed. Wildershin is a performer and an organizer. I'd support a keep only if real sources or reviews could be found. DGG 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Venables is a notable composer, he has just been signed up with the same poeple the published Edward Elgar's work, is this the feat of a non notable man?

This is a reliable, independent website which reviews Ian Venables' work: [46] Dewarw 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another [47] Dewarw 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see, he is a notable composer!

The main source for the John Wilderspin page is an independent reliable page, it explains many of his achievements.

Please note, quotes of reviews were on Ian Venables' page, until they were declared as "self praise" and removed!

Here is a website that reviews both Ian Venables and John Wilderspin! It is about the piece that was mentioned on many of the pages, and was ultimately the reason for them to be listed for deletion! [48] It is from a newspaper company so is reliable and independent.

I hoe that it is being made clear: they are notable people with reviews! It is not difficult to find them, and I am sure that there are many more! if they were to be incorporated into the pages, maybe the pages will become more reliable! Dewarw 18:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources on Tom Allery's page are reliable. Although the link to the programme is not independent, it does back a lot of the stuff up. The other source (Zoominfo) is completely independent! He is also a composer (some of his works are listed. More would come, if there was more time for people to edit.

It has been said that John Wilderspin is an "amateur" organist! I would like to let you know that he gets paid to be the organist. Please do not make accusations like that which could easily be wrong! He is notable as he is well known. this is because he is involved in many musical choirs, organisations etc -as the page explains! Comment as I understand it, a professional musician is one who makes his living at it. An amateur may still be paid for occasional gigs. DGG 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Comment That is what I am saying, he is hired as "the organist." That is his employment, and therefore his living. Dewarw 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE These are of very local interest. To list all local celebrities of this level would make Wikipedia's database of British composers and organists fairly useless to any enquirer. Composers should be regarded as significant if they have been published by major publishing houses, not vanity publishers as seems to be the case here. Fiddleback 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Comment Ian Venables HAS been published by major houses (eg. as was said above "he has just been signed up with the same poeple the published Edward Elgar's work, is this the feat of a non notable man?") he is not just local, he has been commented on by Classic FM and other major reviewers. He is a notable composer in the UK (NOT just the local area). Dewarw 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I live in the West Midlands and I've never clapped ears on the man or his music. Classic FM and what other major reviewers? And who are these same people that published Elgar? Why can't you name the publisher? Fiddleback 21:41, 23 April 2007 (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.

This article refers to an UNIMPORTANT general in Pakistan Army.

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 reason given; circular nomination.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant General Muhammad Zakki

[edit]
Lieutenant General Muhammad Zakki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted Razzsic 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete by Rlevse as nonsense. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 00:40Z

David_Brian_Lee_Jr.

[edit]
David_Brian_Lee_Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable nonsensical bio -- LeCourT:C 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Robert Johnston

[edit]
William Robert Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable student. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 21:18, 17 April 2007 (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 redirect to David Steinman. WjBscribe 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Patriot

[edit]
Green Patriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a one-man "party" or close to that. No references or reliable sources are cited. A Google search on "Green Patriot" + "David Steinman" found no non-trivial mentions except self-published ones. Specifically it found the organizations web site, the founder's various sites, many sites selling or listing one of Steinman's books, and a couple of blog posts. That's it. A search on "Green Patriot" alone found various uses unconnected with this organization in addition to the above. Nothing that could serve as a reliable source was found. Now there might well be offline sources, but none are cited. Seems non-notable. DES (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my nom. A brief mention as part of David Steinman should be sufficient. DES (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I added some sources to the article. There are also print articles coming out about this movement in Awareness magazine, Energy Times and Southern Sierran magazine. Will this be helpful? Thank you. Freedompress 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • response So far as i can see, all of the links you added are interviews with David Steinman, or articles written by him. Is there any citeable reliable source, independant of Steinman, that would establish that this is more than a one-man-band, or Steinman plus a few associates? Has any news source actually covered this party? As for "articles coming out", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, they can be used when they have actually been published, provided thay are not written by Steinman or soemone else closely associated with him. That is my view. DES (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, DES. We added a few addtional resources showing people mention the idea of "Green Patriotism". We aren't claiming that it is a party, but an idea and a new movement. Sure we can try again with the new articles if this article is deleted. Does someone need to second your vote of deletion? Thanks again.Freedompress 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be consensus. Fishal 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I hope they will become notable. enough said.DGG 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to David Steinman. Since by all appeareances he is the only member of this "party", at the moment this is just a content fork. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Iridescenti. The man is notable, but the concept is not. Fishal 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I just added paragraph that Thomas L. Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize winner, used the term "Green Patriotism" in the cited NY Times article, as has Tom Daschle, independent of any association with Steinman. Freedompress 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment OK we now have a "concept" (not a party) that is largely promoted by one notable but not famous individual, and has had brief single mentions by two quite well-known individuals. Indeed it is is not fully clear that the concept that Friedman and Daschle had in mind is the same or nearly the same as the one that Steinman espouses and promotes, because their mentions are too brief to know at all celarly what they mean by the words. I find no evidence of widespread use of thsi term is a concept or meme -- one person as a promotor, plus two brief if not trivial mentiosn by well-known (even famous) figures is not enough to mak a "concept" notable, IMO. DES (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I would like to move this page to say "Green Patriotism". Is this allowed at this time or should I wait until the article status is resolved? Freedompress 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say don't do it - especially since it looks likely that the result of this AfD will be delete or redirect, there probably won't be anything left to move anyway, and recreating the text under a new title will be speedy-deleted under CSD:G4. If the AfD results in keep, just go ahead and move it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moves durnign an AFD tend to screw up the link between the page and the AfD discussion. Even if you fix all those, they may screw up people who have one or the other watchlisted or bookmarked. Such moves are generally frowned on. If the article is not deleted, move it then, and please fix up links to it as much as possible. 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Furious: California Sprint

[edit]
The Fast and the Furious: California Sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is entirely rumour, no fact is present. There is no evidence on the websites for IMDB, Empire or Variety that this film is being considered for production. I believe it should at least be in production before a meaningful article can be created on it. Summary reason for deletion, unverifiable, predictive. Mallanox 21:46, 17 April 2007 (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 and redirect to United Airlines Flight 93. WjBscribe 01:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Elizabeth Wainio

[edit]
Honor Elizabeth Wainio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a memorial; article doesn't establish notability beyond being on United Airlines Flight 93, which doesn't help meet the criteria at WP:BIO. A redirect to United Airlines Flight 93 might be appropriate. Veinor (talk to me) 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Those advocating outright deletion were very much in the minority. It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. That leaves the form in which the material should be presented. There was little agreement as to whether a merge was appropriate given the present size of Virginia Tech massacre with some vigorous opposition to any merge. This is no doubt an issue that should be revisited once some time has passed and the articles about the massacre have reached stable sizes, when a merge may become appropriate. As such I am closing the discussion as "keep" without prejudice to continuing or future discussion of a proposed merge. WjBscribe 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

[edit]
List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a memorial Flavourdan 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is a monumentous event in US History. No, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but a massacre of 32 people in the US is notable in my opinion.
  • Keep This is a superflous argument full of straw arguments. You people fight as if there isn't enough space on Wiki. A list of people killed and info on them is factual information, notable, and worthy of record. This is a historic incident. A list of WTC victim should be compiled, it is a problem of gathering the information; Not having a list for WTC victims is a straw argument. Furthermore, this is not any death, accident, or murder; It has been labeled the deadliest school massacre in US history. I rest my case regarding notability. Romancer 19th April
  • Keep. There is List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre. Will you also ask to delete it? --Neo-Jay 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would once it's unprotected. CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your real argument? Merge or Delete? Do you argue to delete the list from the main article or argue that the list is not long enough?? --Neo-Jay 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, wikipedia is not a memorial, it's very simple CINEGroup 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then you are arguing to completely remove the list form the main article, Virginia Tech massacre. I strongly oppose. A Wikipedia article about a crime usually include the names of the victims. It is not a war or disaster that causes thousands of victims. Please stop using September 11 to support your argument. That's completely different.--Neo-Jay 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) ][reply]
per Neo-Jay Chris 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "completely different", and other similar things (the Haditha killings, which, despite being a group of US marines going around slaughtering civilians, was NOT called a massacre) do not have lists of victims. Quite simply put, it is people trying to put inappropriate material into Wikipedia. Moreover, several victim lists are now up for being deleted because editors became aware of their existance and now they're being found and, likely, excised. Titanium Dragon 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not a Memorial. It says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Please read it carefully: subjects of ... articles must be notable. The subject of the list is a group of people. If the group is notable, i,e, "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the (group)", then the group can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We do not need to prove that every single person in the list is notable. Please remember, WP:MEMORIAL is just a footnote of Wikipedia:Notability. Its goal is to exclude the non-notable content from Wikipedia. It is of course acceptable if editors establish articles to honor departed notable person, or notable group of persons. If you want to delete this list, you must prove that the group of people is not notable, i.e., has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the group. I don't think that you can do that. BTW, if the complete list of September 11 attacks or Haditha killings also has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, then of course it can also be the subject of Wikipedia article. --Neo-Jay 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator made no coherent explanation of why the article violates any policy, so badgering the people who are saying it should be kept is extremely unfair. The nominator needs to include an explanation of why this specific page violates the policy. He has not done so. Linking to a policy by itself is not helpful. Johntex\talk 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HokieRNB explicitly said "Please include a reason why you think this list should be kept or deleted" (italics added for emphasis). He's not badgering the people who are saying this list should be kept. If he's badgering, he's badgering all those who are voting without explanation. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would please ask the "Keep" !voters to explain their reasons, as we cannot gather consensus on a subject if we don't know their reasoning behind their suggestions here. My delete vote is based on the fact that there is nothing notable about these people as individuals, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is nothing but listcruft. Corvus cornix 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a tragedy now yes, but in reality, there are many horrible acts that happen in the world. Does the World Trade center page list all of it's victims? Does the War in Iraq page? No. Quite simply emeotions are high right now and people need to be able to put emotions on paper or in this case a computer, but this is NOT the right way to honor the dead.
    • Comment. This was not in any way done to honor the dead. This article was made to temporarily give information about the victims a better place to develop, with intentions to merge once the victims were all known. We list the Columbine Massacre victims, the Kent State victims, the January Events victims, etc., etc. They're an important part of the tragedies. We do not cover 9/11 or Iraq casualties in very large part because there are several thousand of them. --Kizor 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neo-Jay The System 3000 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article. A quick look through massacre articles shows that this list would be conspicuous through it's absence. With respect to WP:INN, inclusion is not an indicator of notability but in this case, exclusion of this information would be conspicuous. Mallanox 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article. Most major killing sprees, killings, mass murders, bombings, etc... articles on wikipedia have a list of victims included. A simple list of names is not a memorialization. Pretty words about how so/so is missed IS. Please learn to differentiate between the two. Historians will want a record of the victims names. How many people would want to remove the list of victims from the Bath School disaster, or the Titanic? Dont editorialize, or memorialize. A factual list does not fail WP:NOT a memorial.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ASSuming that we are going to list now every single victim in every shooting and every terrorist attack, including every person ever murdered, and every soldier in iraq, even down to the old man who was murdered last week right? WHAT makes ANY murder victim notable? I think anyone would argue that ANY person you know PERSONALLY would be more notable than anyone you didn't know. MY dead mother is more notable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because I knew her. The people at the world trade centers are more noptable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because it was over 2500 of them. Ego makes notability. Let's list all the victims of the 1969 mcdonalds attack in which 20 people were killed. Let's list all the people the IRA has killed. Fook it, let's make Wikipedia a memorial which Jimbo has said, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL

I'm ASSuming thats easy enough for you ALL to understand now okay? CINEGroup 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop SHOUTING IN ALL CAPITALS. It does not make up for the fact that you have advanced no meritous reason for deletion. Johntex\talk 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the tone of CINEGroup's comment, it did have merit. He did cite policy. --Hemlock Martinis 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


We believe that 32 dead is notable, but 2500 isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=world+trade+center+victims

NOTHING CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should create an article on the World Trade Center victims, not for memorial purposes, but to get a real sense of the scope of the catastrophe. A long list is much stronger image than a quick number and potentially helpful for people doing research, which after all is a major reason for the existence of encyclopedias. --164.107.223.217 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To create a strong, personal, emotional response in the reader? To have the reader stand in awe of the staggering amount of victims not by presenting the number of dead but by listing them and providing pictures? Last time I checked, a list of names like that is a memorial, and your intent is what memorials are supposed to do. Which is not what we're supposed to be doing. Cheeser1 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this has now gone very quiet after I posted right above. Makes you realize, wikipedia is not a memorial. This page was doing edits everyu few seconds for the last 2 hours. Nothing now in last 5 minutes? Or is someone off to rush and make a page for all the world trade center victims also? CINEGroup 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people have been put off by the level of excitement shown on this page. There's no need to shout and please remember we're here to get a consensus not drown each other out with capital letters and what-have-you. Mallanox 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter what consensus is reached, Jimbo himself will kill the page as he has stated his memorial thoughts on wikipedia. He has deleted MANY a memorial page. CINEGroup 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there really is nothing to get worked up about. Mallanox 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CINEGroup, if I saw an assertion like that in an article I would remove it or tag it with [citation needed]. Do you have any sources to back up your claim that (a) Jimbo deletes memorial pages (b) there is any similarity whatsoever to a memorial page? Johntex\talk 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article on the massacre. -MrFizyx 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or otherwise Merge. For those of you arguing that such a list exists for the Columbine Massacre - what about the hundreds of similar massacres that have occurred all over the world in the past 10 years? Simply because the number of victims is conveniently small and the media have made it conveniently simple for us to get the names does not mean that the subject should have an article. ugen64 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There is no information on this page that isn't already in the main article, and there's no reason for any more information that what is here. Several people on the talk page, including myself, have suggested sidebars ala the Columbine High School massacre and Bath school disaster. Natalie 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a event of historic proportion not like hundreds of similar massacres, because it recent it may not yet seem like it, not all the names have been released and as they do the coverage of each of the people who were victims will become greater in detail this isn't something run of the mill, let's not rush here ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as original article is too long now. Needs to be split. Rockstar (T/C) 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - newer articles (esp. current events) have changing content. Say there's a list being maintained separately, and maybe one in the article itself, and there is content that overlaps between the two articles pertaining to more than just a list of names. That's highly problematic. Further, we have to be reasonable: how much of what you just listed would even be encyclopedic? If one of the victims dies at a hospital, as opposed to en route, what encyclopedic merit does that have? What scholars study that? Cheeser1 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to that is simply to not have the list in the main article, but only in the sub article. That makes it easy to keep the list up to date. The reason someone might care about when the victim dies is that it implies something about the accuracy and force of the assault. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge Chensiyuan 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Patrick 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) This will be a fairly long list. Should be separate from the main article. Victims of all shootings are tragic, but these are notable. Look at the press coverage they get. It's not a memorial, it's important and notable information that would clutter and distract from the main article.[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Sahasrahla 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but merge - good grief, we don't need the main article to be this large. A simple list is all that the main article needs. I would lean on the side of having this article, but for crying out loud, think before you merge. --BigDT 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'keep"' - a list where the people who died and more info bout them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.246.66 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per Alkavar and Johntex. A factual list of names is not a memorial. We have lots of factual listss of names, places, etc. It looks like firm precedent is set by other long standing articles to have a list of victims. This is not the World Trade Center or the Vietnam War or World War II with thousands or millions of names to list, so those examples are irrelevant. Force10 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm indifferent about the article, but it's worth noting that Wikipedia is not precedent-based, but rather consensus-based. -Halo 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - my point is that the list of victims does not seem at all out-of-place in long-standing articles. There was a rush to deletion here because emotions are raw. What we have done in other places is relevant to forming and maintaining consensus. As a matter of fact, most of our guidelines do not arrive by voting, they arrive by looking at what we commonly do from day to day and then capturing that into words. In this case, what we normally do is to keep a list of victims. Force10 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *ugh..edit conflict* Keep (merge if you must) - Alright, I just wrote a long response, and I knew there'd be an edit conflict..but silly me forgot to c&p just in case..moving on. I think the article should stay. It's notable, and WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered". Well, the victims are notable, because they've been covered by press throughout the world, and are part of the most significiant school shooting in United States history. If you must, then merge, but I feel that it'd make the main article waay long, and that it's better off it's own seperate space. --theblueflamingoSquawk 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These people are not notable individually (for the most part), but they certainly are notable as a group. Further, while a list should certainly be maintained on the main article page, we should shift most of the bio information to this page.Chunky Rice 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --MZMcBride 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Keep the emotions out of your article writing. --Servant Saber 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Hemlock Martinis 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because it will keep getting added back into the main article. I do beleive there is a chance it may be useful later... and even if it isn't, having this side article frees up clutter from the main article. It may not pass the ten year test but we can figure that out in a month when the recentensia move on to the next next big hyped news media event. Keep for now and we'll see where it goes. I agree that it should be concise and factual and not a soapy memorial of how we will all miss each student/professor. MPS 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Take a look at Bath School Disaster or École Polytechnique massacre. They're well done — particularly the former — and give us all of the information we need. The current article here has very little extra information, save for a batch of likely fair use violations that I notice are getting deleted at this very moment. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'd considering keeping, but I think the Bath School disaster listing is more appropriate yet remains respectable. --Ataricodfish 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the media are discussing the details of their lives, displaying their pictures, etc. This makes this info notable. There are too many WTC victims (and for that matter, victims of OK City, poverty, AIDS...) for them to receive such individual fame & examination and thus easily-verifiable info. This is (or will soon be) high-quality info tracked down by reputable news organizations. It stays. Even apart from its value (or not) as a memorial, the info is eminently WP-worthy, but it can't possibly fit on the main article. --zenohockey 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's not a memmorial if you include the killer himself. He counts as one of the casualties. The article is informative. Malamockq 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm changing my vote to delete because it's obvious that the article is turning into a memmorial, which is NOT allowed. Delete it as per that reason. A place of mourning the victims is not appropriate for wikipedia. Malamockq 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that this is a memorial. A memorial would call them victims rather than casualties. At the moment, Wikipedia's list is easiest to find and most complete, and for those who may be distant friends needing to check, this should stay up. As a page of information and reference. Which is exactly what Wikipedia IS supposed to be. newsong 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't even know why we're discussing this. The list does not violate any policies. The list is not a memorial, it's funny how people see things. It's a list of the victims with mini-bios of the victims and injured. Having such information in the massacre article won't fit correctly, and most of the victims were too young to have done much in their lifetimes that might fill a per person article. I'm assuming bad faith for the request of deletion. --Witchinghour 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. The information on this page is on the main Massacre article. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That's right, Wikipedia is not a memorial. But this page is merely informational, so there is no need for deletion. Chris 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So any mention of the victims would constitute a memorial, that's absurd. Is this page a memorial? --Witchinghour 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not know if the public will find them individually notable enough that there will be articles on each of them in multiple sources; if there is such public notice then there will be appropriately WP articles in each. But as the mere list this is surely justified. I cannot understand the rush to deletion. The very need to have the discussion of it disgraces us all. DGG 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Keep This is important information of the deadlist shooting in the United States. Keep this Yearsago 12:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above. FreshFlyFamous 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't mean "Wikipedia has no any kind of information at all about dead people" or "Wikipedia has no any kind of information at all about people who died in remarkable circumstances". I'd pull the Not a Memorial Card out in cases of, say, plane crash or other disaster that claims hundreds of victims and you'd be making an article for each and every one of these people, but this list is easily of manageable size and we're not making articles for the individual victims. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As of right now, there is remarkably little difference between this page and the list of victims on the article's main page. Where do we see this going in the future if it doesn't get merged? Rockstar (T/C) 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge completely and without cutting anything back into the article on the massacre. It is a very notable event and encyclopedic information on a massacre includes the names of people killed. Awartha 07:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Real96 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - article contains no substantive content which can't be included in the Virginia Tech massacre main article. QmunkE 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the list is hardly informative in its own. But without its absence, the main article will feel lacking. So merge there. Plus thirty-odd names wont make the length go out of proportion - it can be easily stated in a two ot three column format to save space. --soum (0_o) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the names and Delete the biographies - Unlike (virtually) everyone else, I don't see any reason for keeping the individual names as a separate list. I don't agree with the delete arguments based on WP:MEMORIAL, but "things where a lot of people die at once" happen every day, and we don't list every passenger on a crashed plane, every casualty of a battle etc. IMO the article on Dunblane massacre is pretty much a perfect example of how this sort of thing ought to be handled. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent article. Noclip 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as staded above. It's good to have sub-pages --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What purpose does naming each victim serve to people that have never heard those names before (lack of notability) but want to know what happened during the shootings? Why isn't a number enough (or maybe general information about the average age of the victims as well)? (Antonio.sierra 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge with main article. WP not a memorial, at least for seperate pages. --Daysleeper47 13:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the parent article. This is relevant information, but does not merit a separate page. Mike Helms 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless this article is going to be greatly expanded, it can fit entirely and nicely inside the main article. _selfworm_ ( Give me a piece of your mind · Userboxes · Contribs )_ 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - if this article provided quite a bit more information on the victims than the listing already in the main article, then I'd say keep. However, as it stands, it should be merged. Jauerback 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of victims, when that list is not excessively long and it is well referenced, does not violate WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. See a recent discussion at WT:NOT and the related AFD regarding the list of Columbine victims. YechielMan 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is anyone advocating to keep this article proposing that a list about these people, beyond their names as a list of victims, is somehow encyclopedic? Besides victims who may be related to the circumstances of the shooting (something that will be documented sufficiently in that article), if any of these people's lives merit documentation, they will have their own articles. If they don't, then why should we document their lives here? I don't see how the relevant list of names (and even maybe ages and positions at the university) cannot simply be merged into the main article, providing sufficient (if not more than enough) information about these people, as far as information meriting encyclopedic consideration goes. As soon as we put the list in its own article and start writing pseudo-biographies and posting pictures of people, none of which merits encyclopedic consideration, we are creating a memorial. That's what a memorial is. As I've mentioned, even a list of names, when constructed in a particular fashion or context, is a memorial (see Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Cheeser1 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The list is appropriate, it is not a memorial, its a historical fact. Matthew 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergify - List is interesting and relevant, but not as a page in its own right. Information should be kept in the same place for readability. Jdcooper 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Keep for now, merge back in when all the shit gets taken out of the main article, which can happen when this event outlasts people's short-term memory (next week sometime). Jdcooper 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The parent article, Virginia Tech massacre, is now large enough that it could make sense to have the victims names split off of the main article. I would consider dropping my earlier Delete !vote if a couple of things changed. First, the list of names should come completely out of the main article. Only a short synopsis of where the deaths occured and a count of students vs faculty should be in the parent article. Next, the article under discussion should be renamed to Victims of the Virginia Tech massacre as it is more than a list and contains information on the circumstances of how the victims were where they happened to be. Fortunately, the list article has gone through some improvment during this discussion as a lot of the memorial (per WP:MEMORIAL) content has been removed and it is more fact based now. --StuffOfInterest 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Pupster21 Talk To Me 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Where were all these keep votes when List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm (250+ deaths) was deleted repeatedly, and when List of General Slocum victims (1000+ victims) was deleted??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 16:06Z
    • Perhaps those events (as tragic as they were) were not as fresh in people's minds and their articles were not getting as much attention. --Wordbuilder 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So clearly if this article is kept and/or the Columbine one is kept, I should be able to recreate the other one(s). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 16:28Z
I support your recreating of that list as well as I'm sure it's useful to somebody, say at least people researching disasters and as encyclopedias are primarily useful research tools that catalog the knowledge of we humans, the more factual information, the merrier and so yes, if I you recreate that, you have my strong support. --24.154.173.243 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I'm not swayed by the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" argument: the list of fatalities is historical, informative, and pertinent to the main article; nor are there individual articles being created for each of the fatalities, but only for those (like many of the faculty members) who attained notability otherwise, & the killer himself. --Yksin 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now I think it should be simply kept. The main article is too large already for a merge; all victim info there should be deleted except for a link directing to this article. --Yksin 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — this is a factual and noteworthy list with good references relating to a high-profile event, the most serious of its kind in US history. — Jonathan Bowen 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. The "Wikipedia is not a memorial" has nothing to do with this article. This is factual, well-sourced information. --musicpvm 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again, the inclusionist in me comes out. Wikipedia's notability and other guidelines for inclusion are getting out of control. This information should exist on Wikipedia. The main article on the massacre is already too long and if this article was merged back into it, it would be even longer. We should make exceptions when it comes to some articles. I guarantee that at some point, somebody will come to Wikipedia looking for a list of victims and that is what we should worry about. "The sum of all human knowledge." Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? It bothers me when well written, well sourced articles (this one is definitely well sourced and it hasn't even had time to develop yet and its a list so the prose gets a pass) are deleted because they failed Wikipedia's strict notability policies or one of its numerous guidelines. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but this article isn't a memorial. It is a list of people that died in the attack and information on where they were when it happened. At the very least, this article should be allowed to develop naturally after the initial publicity of the attack has died down. But, this is valuable information that cannot be remerged into the main article due to its length. But it shouldn't be deleted. ↔NMajdan•talk 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep What's the big deal? It's a subpage of Virginia Tech massacre which has gotten too big? JeffBurdges 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, all the information is still in the main article. So I vote to postpone the deletion vote for one month or so , i.e. keep but renominate after at least one month. JeffBurdges 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is one of the most deadly civilian shooting in US history. It tells about the victims and is accurate. I say fix up the article and make it more detailed. Mrld 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lists of victims are not notable and are not encyclopedic. First off, the list of names isn't notable - if a person isn't important enough to be mentioned in the article, and don't have an article themselves, they shouldn't be in some list. Second, its completely unreasonable - look at 9/11. It would be farcical to list all the victims of those attacks. This is not the point of Wikipedia. I suspect this will come up again in a month when no one cares anymore. Using other examples is bad, because they shouldn't be there either. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Titanium Dragon 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep Around For the love of God, lists of major histoical events ARE encyclopedic. This list is hardly unwieldly and I guarantee LOTS of Wikipedia's readers are looking at this. So why deny people a resource that they're interested in? Y'all shouldn't be so quick to delete! --172.166.196.253 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't. Just because people come looking for it doesn't mean we should have it; if it isn't notable (like this), violates wikipedia policy (like this), ect. Seriously, there are plenty of other places to get this information. In any event, its already in the main article, so its not like it isn't available. Please make arguments on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you're also agitating to remove the list from the main article.Chunky Rice 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is an issue to take up there, not here. It is entirely irrelevant in this discussion. If it belongs in the main article or nowhere, it belongs in the main article or nowhere, not in an article that doesn't merit its own entry in Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - Keep for all the reasons mentioned by others, merge because the list is short enough to fit into the main article. Under no circumstances should it be deleted. In addition, I don't understand why people are being such hardline rule-pushers. In what way does it hurt the integrity of Wikipedia to have this article? Does it cause bandwidth problems? Is it such a NO-NO that it does not adhere to every single guideline of Wikipedia? Don't be ridiculous. There is all kinds of extraneous information on this site, some of which is deleted, some of which isn't. In NEITHER case does the site suffer for it. Stop being such robots and show some compassion. Godheval 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not compassionate; it is supposed to comply with its guidelines, be NPOV, be well-written, and be encylopedic. An encyclopedia would not include junk like this, because it simply isn't notable. In a year when someone looks this up, they aren't going to be looking for the list of victims names. It simply is not notable in an encyclopedia. Titanium Dragon 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By this argument, no mention should be ever be made of the name of any victim of any murderer unless that victim was "notable" enough to merit an article of his or her own. (This is of coures assuming that the murderer was him/herself "notable" enough to merit an article.) --Yksin 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not addressing "Wikipedia", as it is not an actual entity. I was addressing the people involved in maintaining it. You have managed to answer ZERO of my questions with regards to how keeping the article hurts the site. If articles being "well-written" is a rule on the site, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not to delete this article. Over 50% of the articles here have glaringly poor writing in them. Get to work. =) Godheval 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hurts the site because it is unencyclopedic and we have certain standards. NPOV is one of them, notability is another, ect. Basically, by complying with those guidelines we make Wikipedia reputable, a better source of information, ect. Including junk weakens all that. We have rules for a reason. Your argument holds no water because there are specific rules for Wikipedia which we follow for a reason. Titanium Dragon 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is scattered information on this page and several others. This information should be merged to create a central place but without losing information, such as ages and hometowns of victims.

  • KEEP Keep this. Why would you delete it? More knowledge the better.
That is not true. Not every bit of data can be considered knowledge, nor can every bit of knowledge be considered encyclopedic. Cheeser1
It has to have encyclopedic merit in its own right (as opposed to as a part of the article about the event in question). Else it's a memorial. That question is further addressed by some others who've already spoken (above). Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not a reason necessarily for something to be on Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no reason to necessarily need a list for extra information about the victims. Right underneath an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which was already cited, is another important policy: Notability is not inherited. A list of victims may be encyclopedic to the article, but pseudo-biographies and pictures of all the victims, unless established to be important and encyclopedic with regard to the shooting simply do not merit being in Wikipedia, certainly not developed as a part of their own article/list. Cheeser1 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I've already registered my "vote"). Most of the policy references here, such as those you mention, are talking about "notability" (a problematic concept in & of itself, but I won't get into that here) in terms of independent articles. For example, just because radio station KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article, doesn't mean "Morning program thus'n'such" that airs on radio staion KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article.
Which makes sense, sure. Yet, as I mentioned in a comment above, many people seem to be taking the whole "notability" criteria to mean that if a given fact doesn't merit its own article, it shouldn't be mentioned. Hence, we shouldn't list the names of Virginia Tech shooting victims -- oh except maybe a couple of the professors who had achieved independent notability -- because they're not "notable" on their own. In the article on Cho, we shouldn't mention that Cho kept a pet fish because the pet fish isn't "notable" -- even though the article is ostensibly a biography, & the fact Cho kept fish is a biographical fact about him.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about "notability" in this regard. But the fact is that always, always, what is notable is only notable because of its context. Nothing in this article, the main article, the Cho article, or on Wikipedia as a whole, has any notability outside of how it related to other people/places/things/events.
It's completely obvious to me that the names of Cho's victims are notable within the context of the main article just as much as the name of JFK's assassin is notable in a bio of him, or the names of Jack the Ripper's victims are notable in a story about Jack the Ripper. The question for me is not one of "are these names pertinent or not" but whether they should be merged with the main article or not. Arguing against the merge is that the article is already so large, & WP policy seems to be "if the article gets too large, break it up into subsidiary articles." But the intent of that seems to be in most cases that subsidiary articles are more-or-less considered part of the main article by reference. The only reason this article should be separate is because of that size consideration. But if the main article somehow magically shrinks inside, then yeah, of course it ought to be merged. Until then, its a keeper. --Yksin 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Amend: Fish reference was apparently some other editor's misread of an article about Cho. I can find no media reference to it. --Yksin 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That's not the point. People's hometowns and college majors are not notable (or at least, notability has been in no way established). A list of victims is perhaps encyclopedic, but mini-biographies of each and every one are not. If a person merits entry, s/he will have one and we can use a wikilink in the list of names to indicate such. If a person does not, then there is no need for biographical information outside the scope of the encyclopedic event (name, role in the event, etc). If the only thing notable about them is that they were killed in the attack, then information about them in wikipedia should pertain only to the attack. A list of names can easily and cleanly be merged into the article (as demonstrated by a number of examples). There is simply no reason not to merge. Cheeser1 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, getting all mixed up about what "notability" means. By this argument, we should exclude the birthplaces, hometowns, educational affiliations, etc. of every other human being mentioned on Wikipedia. To me, the inclusion of such basic data vastly improves its encyclopedic value, while refraining from becoming a memorial complete with flowers & personal remembrances by each person's friends and family. --Yksin
I have not mixed up any notability, don't generate an absurd strawman and tell me how silly I must be. The fact is, they don't pass WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned, and are only notable in their connection to this particular happening. As such, they don't merit their own article(s) or their own biography(ies). People whose birthplace, background, etc may be notable (e.g. the shooter) ought to have these things expounded, and mentioning each victim's age or status (student, professor, etc) may be noteworthy with regard to the event, but something like "computer science major from Oklahoma" is irrelevant and not notable, however much respect I might have for the dead. And please don't forget that just because I read policy differently than you doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the burgeoning size of the main article is a pretty good reason.Chunky Rice 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although someone has very recently messed up the placement of the list, in Bath School disaster there is a list of victims that is well integrated into a long article. The magic of computers is that you can simply scroll down a page (or even skip all the way down, using a link), rendering "long" articles not so long, assuming we keep them organized - which we are capable of doing. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MEMORIAL. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The stuff in WP:NOT about memorials says, quote, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The 32 victims are notable for having been the victims of the largest single-shooter mass shooting in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. Hence, their "notability." --Yksin 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, it seems they fail anyway. They are notable as a group but most are not individually. Rockstar (T/C) 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! You got it! That's why they're in this article as a group instead of all with their own individual articles. Note also the WP:NOTE specifically says, "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by Wikipedia's guidelines on the reliability of sources and trivia" (emphasis added). So this continual referencing of WP:NOTE is inappropriate when used to argue for the exclusion of the names of the individual victims from this article, because the topic of this article is all the victims of this massacre as a group, not any one of them as an individual. Nobody is arguing here that each of them is notable enough to warrant their own article -- because in that case yes, WP:NOTE applies. --Yksin 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Vietnam Veterans Memorial. If a list is unnecessary or constructed in a particular manner, it surely does serve as a memorial. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Strong Keep There is a list for Columbine, and this, as of now, being the worst mass shooting in U.S. history - yes - the victims deserve an article.
The fact that there is a list does not justify having one here. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact that the other list is useful is significant in showing why this list will be useful as well. Calling it crap doesn't strengthen your argument. Your argument still is not persuasive. Johntex\talk 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but we're not talking about my argument here (you want to talk about that, comment where I stated my case). I'm just pointing out that the (unsigned) strong keep and that person's argument were given for reasons that are 100% against policy. And I didn't call anything crap, that's just an interwiki link that's convenient and easy to remember. You do little by nitpicking and pretending that this constitutes my argument as opposed to the obvious and clearly appropriate rebuttal of a statement that disagrees completely with wikipolicy. If you don't like it, then you'll just have to deal with it - it's policy, clear and simple, even if it is linked as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (if that bothers you so much, get the redirect removed). Maybe you're an admin, but I'm not afraid to tell you when you're way off base, buddy. Cheeser1 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to call people and their policy-citing arguments ridiculous, please try to cite policy in your argument, as I might remind everyone that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy. Cheeser1 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deliberation on policy. This is a deliberation on how to make the encyclopedia as good an useful source on this topic as possible. These concepts are similar but very definitely not the same. --Kizor 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I agree with all of the above about keeping this very important reference source. That this is even an issue is ridiculous.Rockules318 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This information is already nicely fit into Virginia Tech massacre. This page is not needed. └Jared┘┌talk┐  12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is not a memorial and the largest massacre in modern US history. Such a list will be useful. This is a larger massacre than Columbine High School and such a list is somewhat useful. Such a list will not need articles for each and every victim. The list on the main article should be removed and summarised into a paragraph in prose (mainly not about the victims names please). Terence 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I think I should consider it. I might change my opinion in afew hours. Thank you for raising that point. Padishah5000 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there's room on this site for individual Duck Tales episodes, there's room for information on the victims of the worst school shooting in US history. Evan Waters 11:52, 20 April 2007
  • Comment. As the main article has evolved & grown too large for one article, editors have now completely removed victim information from the main article except for a very brief summary paragraph & incidental mention of some victims in the narrative otherwise. I.e., this list article is now the only page listing all victims. --Yksin 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a notable subject that is interesting to very large numbers of people. Obvious keep.
  • Strong keep per Neo-Jay. Fullmetal2887 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is historical information that should be public knowledge. Raphael 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Regarding the last three comments. Deletion of this article has nothing todo with removing the information from wikipedia. The names of all these people could easily be intergrated into the main article with little expanson of it's size. Please do not feel this is an attempt to hide information or not make it public knowledge... the information will be there, just not this obituary! --Jimmi Hugh 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the editors of the main article are trying to break off parts of it into sub-pages in order to keep the length under control. Forcing a merger back into it seems counter productive, to me.Chunky Rice 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course i am aware... unlike the comments along the lines of "I like this article, it is ueful information people should know" i actually read all the articles and only make comments on policy. Hence the reason i made the coment that it would be simple to intergrate this information into the main article and maintain it's size with a little clean up to the main article. Also, even if this were not the case (as i am looking for suitable splittable topics), Wikipedia is still not a a place for Obituaries and therefore this is not a good candidate for seperation. --Jimmi Hugh 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. No need to get snippy.Chunky Rice 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aplogies... just trying to turn the discussion towards policy so that we can all have a discussion about it's inclusion based upon the rules. --Jimmi Hugh 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all about policy. I don't like WP:NOT, though, because it's derivative of more fundamental policies, like WP:N, WP:ATT or WP:OR. As such, it expresses those policies as examples, but does not supercede those fundamentals. So, here the fundamental issue is WP:N. In my opinion, the way in which these people died and the coverage that it has received confers notability. It's not indiscriminate. When the vast majority of people die, they get an obit. Maybe a mention in the local paper. These people are the subject of several non-trivial articles from secondary reliable sources. I honestly don't see the argument against it, other than the WP:MEMORIAL bit and I already explained why going to the root policy is superior that that derivative one. Chunky Rice 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like it or not, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Now, personally, I disagree with the reasoning behind that part of WP:NOT, but it is currently policy and that policy is blocking the inclusion of many other lists of victims, e.g., Columbine, 911, or the Omagh bombing (where I first learned of the policy). So until that policy is changed, it has to go. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. An external link to third-party news source from the main article (mentioning the details of victims) would suffice. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT:"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered" (my enormous emphasis) I rest my case at Speedy keep. --GunnarRene 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all individuals are notable enough for separate articles, but this list has a notable subject and they can be mentioned within it. --GunnarRene 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How do your reasons lead to the end of speedy keep via the criteria for speedy keep? Rockstar (T/C) 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. Thank for reminding me. --GunnarRene 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. America is justifiably outraged by the killings, and emotions do run high, but we are talking about a bunch of people here most of whom were not notable before their deaths, and suddenly, the press is chasing every detail, however trivial, about the lives of same, provoked directly by the massacre. If that's not memorial, I don't know what is..... Ohconfucius 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge
  • Delete/Merge, I agree with all saying that it is not worth its own independent article, it should be merged if not deleted entirely. Authors can elaborate on each victim then. Tkd 2000 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge - I think this article was spawned due to the size the main article crept to. I think this is alrge enough to have a list, but too large to be included in the main article. I think it is important as encylopedic coverage of this article, however as just a list int he article is a detriment to the quality of the main article. Hence Why I belive it was split into this article and why I believe it should stay. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs to be split off from main article for size and administrative reasons. Realkyhick 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not Merge - The article is not a "memorial", the nominator has put up a straw man and not proven it is a memorial, it is a personal opinion. The article is a "List of.." of basic factual information similar to what is found on news sites all over the country. How else are victims to be listed on Wikipedia? The main article is too long for this one, it is a logical split. -- Stbalbach 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, - if the list of people is important to the article, then im not sure that making it a sub article automatically turns it into an obituary. it seems that an obit stands on its own, where this information is only relevant because the event is notable. seems this is why tangent articles are created - to keep down main article size. the_undertow talk 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously because it's a list of the victims! Effer 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge it to the article. It would avoid pointless page shuffling. Skillz187 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think merge works anymore (though it was what I originally wanted), considering the original page is already at 60kb and needs to be broken up anyway. Rockstar (T/C) 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete the article. There's already a section about Victims in the main article, why have a separate one? Aquatics 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was recently readded to the article after being long-deleted - probably due to fear that the fact it was split to here and then AFDed -Halo 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the main article is too long to merge this information back into it. We can revisit this in a few weeks after everything has calmed down and we've started to gain perspective to judge if this is notable or if the main article can be shortened enough to incorporate this material. --ElKevbo 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But Add the shooter-otherwise its a memorial Brett 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How exactly does that stop it being a memorial? I am sure his family are just as upset about his death given no one did anything to help him, despite knowing he was mentally ill? This is not a comment about whether they should have done anything, just an obvious argument as to why it would still be an obituary. --Jimmi Hugh 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It becomes a list of people killed during a certain event as opposed to a list of people murdered by the same person, which is by definition a memorial; plus, it seems like that is what was done with the Columbine article Brett 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete -- the information is already a part of the main article. I don't believe it warrants another separate article in Wikipedia. N2e 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Darrik2 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy, and that you ought to explain your position. Cheeser1 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #2

[edit]
  • Remove: Because the list is quite long, and because I suspect that people would want to include a little more biographical information than just names, the list should be on a different page. Rooot 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - relevant to the event. The ages of the majority of the victims is relevant, and the fact they come from a wide area, and is what makes it such a tragedy. I also think they're noteworthy enough as a group to deserve an article. I think people are also misrepresenting the spirit of WP:MEMORIAL, where is specifically says "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives" - I doubt most of the voters, or contributors to the article, are friends or relatives of the deceased. It's not here to honour them, it's more a factual list. -Halo 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The list is short enough to fit into the main article. It does not need an article of it's own.
  • Keep The memorial deletions above are a misapplication of that section of that part of policy, in my opinion. WP:MEMORIAL says that "...Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered", but does not say that subjects of notable mass murders can not be discussed or listed at all in the proper context of a synopsis article. In other words, while I agree that most of these victims should not have their own separate article, I do think it is perfectly acceptable to have a list article that summarizes verifiable published information about the murder victims in one place. Such a list taken as a whole is an important, notable part of the information about the crime as a whole. Therefore I recommend keeping this list, since the list is a notable sub-topic and reference for the main article, but do not necessarilly support individual separate articles on individual victims. Dugwiki 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dugwiki RaveenS 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. Qjuad 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly merge and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. WP:MEMORIAL is applicable in this case because notability has to have existed prior to the event occurring (or afterward if they gain notability for something other than being a victim). --Coredesat 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It should be put in the main article, there is no point in having it in a different section, it's on the same topic. --Jesant13 01:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - For about a billion reasons cited above! --JayHenry 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Although Wikipedia is not an online memorial, this is a list of victims of an incident that already meets Wikipedia's notability standards. When an incident is noteworthy for the people killed in the tragety, certainly the names of the people killed and some basic information (age, academic major, status as a graduate/undergraduate student or professor) should be noteworthy. In addition, the alleged murderer has his own article. It seems reasonable that the victims can at least have 1/32 of an article. Q0 02:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Should be merged same topic and extremely relevant when reading article. --KianTech 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I've been very vociferous regarding deleting the few individual entries for the victims of the Vtech disaster, arguing for deleting them: With the exceptions of Prof.s Granata and Livescu, who were notable before the incident, all were notable only incidental to the tragedy. Having said that, as a group, for informational purposes I could accept leaving this as an entry, especially since it would relieve pressure on the looming, large main entry for the VTech incident. I am open to arguments and comments, as ever. Pablosecca 09:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Extreme Prejudice I strongly vote to have it merged into the main article or the timeline page and take an idea from this section of the main Columbine_High_School_massacre page by utilizing sidebars. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per precedent. There was a separate list for the Bath School disaster victims and this was merged per unanimous consensus. Since the Bath victims are almost 'double' the number of victims in Virginia (counting injured), there is no reason to create a freestanding article for the victims of this tragedy. If any of the victims are 'independently notable', then that merits a separate article for that individual. Otherwise, there's no basis to set forth anything further than name, age and occupation/student status and that can be fully articulated in the main article. Jtmichcock 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deletion debate on Bath School disaster victims article. Jtmichcock 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reminder that Wikipedia is consensus based, and not precedent based. -Halo 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A list of victims can easily fit into the main article. Sure, the event itself was a notable and massive one, but a list of the victems and any small information on them is not notable. I recommend merging any notable information to the main article on the massacre. 5aret 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some duplication of information. (I know the main article's long, but this would be small and it's getting significantly trimmed down as we type.) A compact list can be maintained on the main article, with a more detailed list than would fit there in this subarticle. 'More detailed' need not include a biography, what Matthew described below would do excellently. --Kizor 18:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - These list of individuals killed in the Virginia Tech massacre is a notable subject and the article's content is presented in an encyclopedic way (very informative) and is encyclopedic. Should be kept as a separate article to reduce length of the main VTm article. The various delete arguments seem to be an amalgamation of I don't like it and misapprehension of the WP:MEMORIAL policy. AVB 2723 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all of the various well-put and overwhelmingly well-reasoned arguments above. There seems to be widespread interest in this list be web surfers, historical validity for its inclusion, enough media attention to shake a stick at, well-referenced and verfiable evidence to back up the article, and so on and so on. --24.154.173.243 20:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge - The list is simply cut and paste directly from the main article. No reason to have them in both places. PaddyM 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. NO, IT IS NOT. That was five, six days ago. Please check again. --Kizor

New discussion

[edit]

Seems there is no clear vote, but furthermore there is a little bit confusion. People voted for "keep", "delete", "merge", "delete or merge" or "keep or merge". We should have separated the Questions

  1. Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?
  2. If this information should appear, should it appear in an extra article (List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre) or in the main article (Virginia Tech massacre).

Hope you don't mind starting this again, but it might help getting a clearer discussion. --Abe Lincoln 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At last - a clear thinker! :-) (No disrespect to all the previous contributors, by the way) --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there's no clear concensus? Seems to me that it's quite clear that the concensus is to keep. I only see a few deletes in comparison to the keeps and merge. Dionyseus 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are many merges, that might mean keep the information but delete the article or if you must keep it, than rather in the main article, but I'd prefer to delete it. But most people want to keep it, I guess. The question is rather where to put it. Abe Lincoln 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should remember that this is not a vote. Cheeser1 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't a vote, but it sure does help determine concensus. The nominating statement itself merely points out WP:MEMORIAL, but the policy actually states that notable subjects are an exception, so the nominator had to provide an argument for why he believes the subjects to be non-notable, something that he did not do. Dionyseus 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is something that has to be proven, and until then, something is presumed non-notable. You can't prove something is non-notable so much as point to a lack of proof otherwise. Cheeser1 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?
[edit]

Yes. It should appear because though the individuals are not necessarily notable, the event is, and the identities of the victims is a notable fact with respect to the event. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It should not appear as a distinct list either in a separate list article or in the main article, because of policy - WP:MEMORIAL. The event is notable, but the victims in and of themselves are not notable except for the manner of their death. WP:BIO apparently used to have a section that allowed the manner of a person's death to allow inclusion if notable, but it no longer does. The names could be included in a discursive manner within the body of the main article, where and if appropriate. There is no similar list for victims of other equally or more notable tragedies such as 911, Columbine, the Omagh bombing, etc. When such lists have been included, they've been removed. (Of course, WP:MEMORIAL and/or WP:BIO could always be amended). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are similar lists for victims of at least two other notable U.S. school shootings, and the notability of these was not contested until this debate was underway. Both have since been tagged with an AfD, which probably is a violation of WP:POINT. However, whether or not other similar lists exist is not a suitable argument for the notability (at least currently) of this list of people. They are all receiving an enormous amount of press, and clearly a lot of attention within wikipedia. Whom does it serve to delete this list at this point in history? HokieRNB 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course, there's nothing to prevent a prominent link to an external list of the victims, something I had to do on Omagh bombing after the list of victims was first moved from the main article to a sub-page then removed entirealy, as discussed here). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are a victims of a highly notable and heavily covered crime. This makes them notable, especially with the media coverage they are each receiving. --Falcorian (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the information is factual and verifiable, and it adds value to our coverage of the event. This seems like a textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose mentioning who was killed or wounded, but a simple list of names or presentation of too many details apart from their role in the massacre would run the danger of becoming a memorial.--FreeKresge 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes as appearing in list format either in Wikipedia or Wikisource Verifiable lists of victims are an important data point for articles about mass murders. The list as a whole should appear either within the main article on the crime (space permitting) or, if the number of victims is sufficiently large, as a subarticle supporting the main article. Another alternative is to have the list as a reference page in Wikisource (if all you have are names and no other encyclopedic style information on the victims). Either way, this is very important, verifiable published information and thus belongs in Wikipedia or Wikisource in some form. WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to these sorts of lists. Dugwiki 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that exception listed? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The factual information about the victims of this event should be included. At the least, this should include their names, ages, roles at Va Tech (student, faculty, etc) and where they were at the time of their murder. I don't see a reason to go much beyond that. This is an important part of the body of knowledge surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 19:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think these details are important for the historical record. Believe it or not, some readers are interested in the victims as well as the murderer. The List of Charles Whitman's victims is an example of how the information should be presented. Last year, I consulted that list because one of those victims taught me calculus a few years before he was shot in Texas in 1966. (Yes, this means that I am older than most of you). Dirac66 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then where?
[edit]

Not in the main article, as it ruins its flow and is inelegent. So put it on a separate page. This allows readers who want more detail to get more detail - without prventing an understanding of events by overloading the main article with too much detail. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has been well established that the list itself is notable, while individuals on it clearly do not pass that test merely by being a part of the list. Additionally, there has been so much activity in the main article (as well as this one), that as a simple matter of convenience it is helpful to have this piece separated out and developed on its own. Now that the facts have mostly been sorted out regarding the victims - how many, who, from where - this page probably doesn't need to go through much more editing and can stand as a point of reference from the main article. As is the nature of any encyclopedia, the usefulness of information is cyclical in nature, and over time (months?) the list can be edited down to just names and merged back into the main article. How can we achieve some closure to this debate? HokieRNB 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with placement in either the main article on the shootings, or in a standalone list (though preferably not both at the same time). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the victims should be mentioned in the Virginia Tech massacre timeline article and integrated into the text. This would put the focus on what is notable--the victims' role in the event. I oppose a simple list of the victims either as a separate article or as a separate section in the main article. As a compromise, I would not object to something like the sidebars in the Columbine High School massacre article which list the victims and where they were shot.--FreeKresge 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Own article, since the names are not important at all for the event itself, but only for those who want to do further research about these poor souls (which will be a minority in the future probably). --Abe Lincoln 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer varies on size Murders with a small number of victims should probably just include the victim's list within their main article. Mass murders where there are a large number of victims and such a list would be unwieldy in the main article should probably separate the list out as either a subarticle or place it in Wikisource as a reference page. Dugwiki 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged However we look at it and whichever other policies we try to fulfil this article is a terrible candidate for being stand alone. Whatever information we add to each item on the list, it will not stop beign an obituary! The only way it would not be an obituary is if it was written in prose, unfortunately then it would simply mimick the main article with more focus on the specific shootign and become redundent. I think we should pick a different section to be taken out, this one simply will never fit into guidlines --Jimmi Hugh 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only Merged Especially after 911, emotions are running high on any wanton act perpetrated on Americans. Whilst I would not expect to see lists of victims for each and every massacre, independent of scale, I believe that this list in this case fits the mood, notable as the event, but could exist within context of the article, worked in to either in Virginia Tech massacre or Virginia Tech massacre timeline. This is a list of 30-odd names, already part of Virginia Tech massacre. A separate article would constitute a memorial, and would be an invitation for people to start expanding the article beyond notable biographical details and into the trivial existence of individuals who would not have merited a listing if they had not been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Have a look at the article again: with all the flags and descriptions of the courses the victims were on, it bears an increasing resemblance to memorials we are well accustomed to seeing. Ohconfucius 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I don't think it matters if it's in its own article of included in the main Virginia Tech massacre article. The main point is to keep the information on the victims from expanding into a memorial. --Crunch 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then to what level of detail?
[edit]

Names only? Names plus very basic information such as age, location/time of death, and status within the university? Longer capsule descriptions of a biographical nature? Please be explicit as to what should be in, and what should be out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short, concise bio of a sentence or two will suffice. There is no need to delete anything, neither is there any need for the victim's life stories, unless they are particularly notable, such as the hero professor. A 2 line bio on Wiki will suffice and anyone wishing to do further study on a person should search for memorial pages and articles. Romancer 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for those who have achieved notability outside the massacre, such as a professor who passes WP:PROF, I would limit information just to what is relevant to the massacre. This could include location/time of death, how many times the person was shot, where the person was shot (e.g., head, chest, but do not make this too morbid), and any verifiable information about what the person did during the event (such as the actions of the hero professor). Last I heard, it was not yet known if the shooter specifically targeted the first victim. If the shooter did target her, any verifiable reasons why he would do so would also be relevant. I would not object to very basic information about the victims, such as or status in the university, but including much more information than that would risk turning this into a memorial.--FreeKresge 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer varies on published information This part is where WP:MEMORIAL would apply. There's no need to create memorial style articles on individual victims talking about otherwise non-notable aspects of their personal lives. So lists should generally be limited to the names and very basic information about the people, as well as information about the person that directly ties to the event. You don't need to know every detail about every high school sports award or the victim's occupation and hobbies, but it is useful to know exactly how they are related to the event and what they apparently did during it. Dugwiki 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Descriptions are fine as they are WP:MEMORIAL says we shouldn't make memorial pages for non-notable people. However, these people were made notable by the tragedy (that doesn't seem to be particularly in dispute.) My point is that, because they are notable for this, they are entitled to a bit more description. An example would be an article about any particular notable fellow, let's say, an author. Oftentimes the article would talk about the person's birth date, children, marital status, etc. However, chances are, they are not notable for any of that. Because they are notable in here, short descriptions are acceptable IMO. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply a moment, a person being involved in a mass tragedy doesn't necessarily mean that that individual person is "notable" per se. It just means that their name will probably be indirectly mentioned in published discussions about the event. Notability refers to something non-trivial being written specifically about a subject, but it's not always the case that something non-trivial is written about victims of tragedies. So while the list of names on a mass murder as a whole is notable, it doesn't necessarily follow that every individual person on that list has received sufficient individual published discourse to be considered notable. Combine that with the fact that articles should leave out emotional or historically unimportant details on the subject and that means that you probably should not have an individual article on a victim unless there is something of substance to say about them that can't be simply included in a simple summary list of all the victims. Dugwiki 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The victims of this shooting will be the primary subject of individual news items by their home-town newspapers and TV stations, etc. Some of them will even receive segments and articles in the national or international press. It will be no troulbe to find 2+ reliable non-trivial stories directly about every single victim.
It is typical for us to include information that is not directly related to that person's fame. For instance, we may give their birth place, even if they moved away and did not grow up there. We may include their parents name or number of children or what some of their hobbies were. There is nothing wrong with giving a well rounded description of the person. We don't have to put our blinders on. Johntex\talk 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been arguing for inclusion, I think this would be excessive and the kind of thing that WP:MEMORIAL is about. Yes, each of these people will likely receive local and probably national attention, individually. However, because their notability comes as a result of their deaths in a tragedy, we should limit the facts to those relevant to the tragedy. Name, age, faculty/student, maybe subject of study, where they died. Once you start talking about favorite hobbies, I think you cross the line into memorial territory.Chunky Rice 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost exactly what Chunky said: Name, age, faculty/student, major, where they died, and anything relevant to why they died (e.g. they were the RA and had responded to a distrubance) anything else is probably not notable and falls under WP:MEMORIAL. --Matthew 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some cognitive dissonance to these arguments. I get the feeling that some people believe that while most of the individuals are non-notable, putting together a list of all these non-notable people means the list will become notable. Sort of a "synergy" argument of sorts. If these victims are not notable enough for an article on the person, then collectively putting their names on one page does not create notability. There's a website with all the names of the ~50,000 deceased persons listed on the Vietnam memorial[50]. Under the proponent's argument, there should be an article called "List of American Vietnam War casualties." It would make just as much sense. Another way to look at this is: If Cho, instead of a pistol had acquired and set off a nuke, should there be a list of the thousands murdered? (You could make the same argument to support a "List of Hiroshima victims). I wouldn't think so, but no one is arguing that there should be a cut-off simply because the numbers are 33 and not 10,000. 67.149.103.119 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact the list of victoms should appear *twice* on wikipedia, one on Virginia Tech massacre and every person should be mentioned in Virginia Tech massacre timeline. I don't see anything wrong with including a little information about the victims in the timeline, such as where they were from, spouse, etc. So the Timeline supersedes this page, and this page should be deleted. If you want to keep this page, you should present some information which can be included here, but can not be included on the timeline. JeffBurdges 12:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The victim list should contain a short bio, birth, etc; The timeline should contain only names, not place of birth or spouse, which have nothing to do with the timeline. Romancer 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was that the timeline should contain the timeline of the shooting itself, if that is ever released. It currently contains only the timeline of news releases, which is kinda silly, and will eventually be deleted. But a timeline containing a detailed account of the incident itself would obviously contain the information on the victims in a paragraph format, which could include where they were born and such. I think your describing a memorial page here. JeffBurdges 13:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained above, name, age, where they were at the time they were killed and their role at the university should be sufficient. This is not a memorial article and it's important to avoid expanding into a "short bio" or including things like hobbies, spouses's name or other information not relevant to the massacre itself. --Crunch 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The amount of current attention to this incident and the length of the parent article makes this supplement needed and useful. The extended bios here are of significance to Wikipedia users everywhere. Maybe 3-5 years for now the argument for merging will be more timely. For now this memorial serves the interests of an interested community.grubbmeister 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEMORIAL states that this or any other memorial, regardless of how "interested" people might be in seeing it, is not necessarily encyclopedic. Notability must be established, and not just for these people, but for this particular article. If not, this information can go in other articles pertaining to the event. Cheeser1 04:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has clearly been established. Dionyseus 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This content is very worthy of an encyclopedia, and should not be lost. I'd rather have this article, rather than individual articles to non-notable victims (several of which I voted to have deleted). +mwtoews 04:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because a centralised page is better than having it spread across 30 or more articles, which will inevitably occur - Domingo Arroyo, the article for the first marine killed, has had keep votes voted on it because he's been remembered in several notable ways, which I have no doubt will happen here to many of the victims. Secondarily, victims of crime are often considered notable where they provoke a change in the law/significant comment from politicans, which this already has and may cause, such as Megan's law in the US or Sarah's law in the UK. I do believe every single article created off from the main apart from that of the perpetrator has been AFD'ed so far - surely some kind of record? RHB Talk - Edits 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Event has received multiday media coverage, while individual victims of crime are not notable the list itself is. Additionally it's not expansive (certainly no Titanic) and is tightly referenced. If we were talking about one or two people - I'd say merge. But the number of victims seems to merit a list article per summary style. No compelling arguments to delete - WP:Memorial would seem to apply if we were talking about my grandfather, not an event with coverage on this scale. Megapixie 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The list is given in the main article. There is no need for a separate page. JoshuaZ 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The list of victims is encyclopedic, and right now the main article is too long. It seems silly to me to have this back and forth and back and forth about creation/deletion/merging. Let's have two main articles, the shooting and the victims, plus a few for truly notable people involved, and after six weeks or so when the flurry has died down, the main article can be re-assessed and if enough can be cut from it to allow re-inclusion of the list, then do so then. Anchoress 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New organization

[edit]

I organized the information by room and explained the general fates of the classrooms. WhisperToMe 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close, with the kind of sources available for the article, this exercise is a waste of time. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. V. Loganathan

[edit]
G. V. Loganathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PROFTEST. Otherwise, WP:NOT a memorial, and 9/11 is my precedent. -- Y not? 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, I fail to see why many people use the straw argument "he has an article because he died". Their death is either irrelevant, or even pro-article, as death MAY make one notable. The merits for keeping an article should be discussed REGARDLESS of said person's death, and then, deciding whether the death itself makes him even more notable (death cannot make one less notable). Having said all this, since this is a significant incident in history, with a small and verified number of people, all people may be considered notable, if not with their own article, then MERGED into the main incident's article. People who were notable regardless, such as successful professors, SHOULD have their own article; Their death was merely a catalist for an article that would have passed the notability tests anyhow. Romancer Wed 18th April
  • Strong Keep, How one dies can make one notable (For example, a member of the military who's life was mundane, but who's death was heroic). This is clearly an example of such a situation. Even if he was a relative 'nobody', this event in history has elevated him from that status spectacularly and tragically. --Daydreamer302000 10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything notable in her article and I'm surprised someone hasn't nominated her for deletion also.-Gloriamarie 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because he was a victim of the WORST school shooting in U.S. history and as a teacher influenced numerous students throughout his career and as stated in the article had an influence on his field and profession as well. People WILL want to read about these people due to the historic significance of the event, also. --164.107.223.217 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. G.V. Loganathan has some claim to notability, considering that he was an Associate Editor of a hydrology journal, and that he received a number of awards at VT. I think he warrants some further investigation to see whether he was regarded a significant expert in his field(s). I also note that fellow victim and colleague Kevin Granata's article was kept. --Buyoof 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming he's not notable, just as with Kevin Granata, without knowing the facts or seeing a complete article, is not the best way to go about this. A quick check of Google News found many international newspapers, especially Indian ones, with much information and reporting on this professor in a short amount of time. I don't think he's as notable as the first two professors announced, but he seems to be quite a news story in India and that makes him notable. As a professor for many years, let's wait and see what people find about what journals he's published in and what he's done in his field of research. He seems to have received many awards from Virginia Tech.-Gloriamarie 23:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Why deleting his bio while the rest of the victims bios are kept? Makes no sense. notable or not, his death is a factual information, just like rest of the victims. It is not written as a memorial..
  • Keep -- Like some of the other professors he was the associate editor of a significant professional journal. In time his article will be expanded. If there was a significant event in a small California city that did not have an Wikipedia article, an article would surely follow the event. The fact that an article hadn't yet been created does not mean that an article was not merited yet. In the case of people, especially professors, a premature death simply means that this person's contributions to mankind have ended -- which ironically is a better time to start an entry for an academic. As a registered Civil Engineer, I actually know people whom have worked with Loganathan. I would not underestimate his prestige in our profession. MCalamari 02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Miljkovic 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if only to see if the article can be expanded. He's an editor of a notable journal, which is a good start. I'd want the article to flesh out his research and awards external to Virginia Tech. It's simply too early to delete this. More time should be given and then delete if no improvement is made. GarryKosmos 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editor of a journal and is a victim of a massacre. I was certainly interested to learn more about the people involved. SandManiac
  • Delete, obviously. God forbid anyone interested in learning about Prof. Loganathan should be able to find information on *Wikipedia*, of all places. Space is limited, people. Obviously this is so; for why else would so many perfectly well-written pages be deleted, even though people are obviously interested in learning about the subjects, and even though it's all backed up by external sources?

In every interaction with the outside world, you "Wikipedians" are so self-centered and petty. Doesn't it violate the supposed spirit of your site to remove interesting, verifiable, and most importantly *useful* information at seemingly every opportunity? 74.66.248.158 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE - Being the associate editor of a journal or even a tenured professor I don't think is notable enough. Dying in a famous way isn't either, else we should have to write articles for all the victims of the Vtech tragedy. Only a few victims deserve their own pages -- for instance, Liviu Librescu, who was prominent in his field and should have had a page before the massacre anyway. Don't let emotions get the better of you, this is a technical, not ethical question. Pablosecca 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I deliberately searched for him so I could learn more about him, as I'm sure many others have and will do in the future. If not for his unfortunate death, then that plus his accomplishments in the academic world are certainly enough to warrant inclusion. Zyarb 05:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google scholar has 316 hits. I'm not sure about the level of the journals, and some are related to teaching, but they are enough serious articles in there too. JeffBurdges 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As a PhD student, I have more than 316 Google Scholar hits and am not notable in any regard. ;) Once you get beyond the top few results, it's all just other people referencing his work or dupe-files. I don't believe Loganathan was an active researcher. Utopianheaven 11:48, 18 April 2007 (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. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dam (disambiguation)

[edit]
Dam (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a copy/paste of Damn (disambiguation), either article must be deleted and redirect. I think Dam (disambiguation) should be a redirect, but I'm not redirecting it, and bringing up here, beacuse I want to know other people's opinions about this.

Comment Damn (disambiguation) already redirects to here. I don't see the problem given the possibility for confusion (WP:CSB). EliminatorJR Talk 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Sorry didn't see it. TheBlazikenMaster 09:02, 18 April 2007 (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, no demonstration or assertion of notability. Also content a likely violation of WP:BLP policy.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teyana Taylor

[edit]
Teyana Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable. Appeared on one short episode of a reality TV show designed to humiliate the individual. Unsourced, contains rumor, etc. Previously deleted CSDA7, possibly could be deleted again as it's a stretch to find the assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 14:47Z

Alombrados

[edit]
Alombrados (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable sub-unit of larger organization, no sources provided, reliable third-party sources unlikely to be found. Delete Jefferson Anderson 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:21, 17 April 2007 (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, no demonstration or assertion of notability. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Magazine

[edit]
Heads Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I speedily deleted a bunch of bad fair use images related to this article twice now. Article is non notable, makes barely any assertion of notability, unsourced, unencyclopedic, WP:CORP violation, WP:SPAM, etc. Just another fan underground 'zine. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter & Sabrina

[edit]
Walter & Sabrina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable composers/artists. Does not meet WP:BAND. Previously speedily deleted for CSDA7, and was recreated. Creator has COI regarding the article. Completely non NPOV and writtne like a spam piece. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeynainsley

[edit]
Abbeynainsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

YouTube user account/series of videos with negligible notability. Contravenes WP:WEB, which states "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Hawker Typhoon 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Has also been previously speedy-deleted for non-assertion of notability. Hawker Typhoon 23:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete - This article has as much rights as some of the other youtube members who have wikipedia pages on here (most of them are stubs and have only 10 lines with no sources) within 2 weeks this article should be cleaned-up, will have more sources and will generally be improved... on the youtube page it writes "Fame After Youtube" and Abbey & Ainsley's video appeared on the British Chat show "Richard & Judy" therefore I am fighting that this article is NOT deleted!! I am a fan of abbeynainsley and was watching the "OURTUBE" bit on the Richard & Judy show where it showed some of the Funniest/weirdest videos on Youtube and it played "Abbeynainsleys" 1 minute video "Freaks Of Nature" therefore please KEEP this article. Beck 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "PLUS other members of youtube have a wikipedia entry" is not criteria for inclusion. Sorry. Caknuck 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Above vote was by a user with only one edit - here. Hawker Typhoon 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of this discussion page

[edit]

I have just reverted vandalism to this page by Lucyann20088 who changed other people's comments to make it look like they are in favour of keeping the page. I imagine Lucyann20088 is a sock puppet of someone else here as they both seem to have inexplicably put "Not Delete" instead of "Keep". Yeanold Viskersenn 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE: HAHA well 3 users put "Delete" and 2 have put "Not Delete" does this mean the member(s) who put "Delete" is the same person? No!!! 217.38.6.126 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC) also im in favor of the article being Kept better not put Not Delete User Yeanold Viskersenn might think im the same person![reply]
You are also the only person I've seen who highlights words in sentences like this. An odd coincidence that all three of you have the exact same writing style and make the same mistakes. Vainly trying to trick the system like this is making an already weak argument look even weaker.Yeanold Viskersenn 00:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being on television once isn't a valid claim to notability. An internet serial like lonelygirl15 deserves an article because of the unlikely exposure it received in all forms of mainstream media, this however, has nothing. -Lemike 06:34, 21 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmic Circus

[edit]
The Cosmic Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn, there are no refs, the tone is that of a fanbase, and the link to the subject of the article isn't active. the_undertow talk 23:32, 17 April 2007 (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. fishhead64 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama animals

[edit]
List of Futurama animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Simply listcruft in my opinion. A few animals being in a popular cartoon doesn't seem like enough to justify a list. RobJ1981 23:33, 17 April 2007 (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. Michaelas10 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

[edit]
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A French language instructor killed in the Virginia Tech shooting. Much of the article lingers on the status of her husband, who, unlike Mrs. Couture-Nowak, appears to meet WP:PROF. A claim for notability is as founder of École acadienne de Truro (article recently created), but I am unsure if this crosses the threshold for inclusion. BanyanTree 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability given the events of yesterday. You clearly dont have to be notable before being murdered to be notable afterwards, eg Sarah Payne, SqueakBox 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see the possibility of a law being made because of this one person's death. Sarah Payne's unique murder and the creation of her eponymous law made her notable not the fact that she was murdered. Gdo01 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some serious work, however. ---Lmcelhiney 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. In the aftermath of the shootings, it is difficult to judge whether her death alone confers sufficient notability; it does, however, confer enough noteworthiness such that we should wait on deletion, and give research into her credentials time to progress. Premature AfD, under the circumstances. Xoloz 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball - if you really believe your argument then that article should be deleted and then recreated if/when notability is proven at a later date.--Vintagekits 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so we must err on the side of exclusion! Got it. Hard disk space is almost as precious as oxygen, after all. Uggh 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not psychics on Wikipedia. We can't know whether someone will be notable or not. But we can't give people entries on the expectation (here, unfounded) that they eventually will probably have something notable about them. Pablosecca 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am sure she was a lovely woman and deserves to be remembered but wiki is not a memorial we need to satisfy WP:N to be included. A lot of the "keep" votes are very emotional but are not based on wiki policy. It is more than likely that this lady will become notable in the future, however, we need a little perspective on the recent events.--Vintagekits 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, with no prejudice against or precedent set for a future RfA once everyhting sorts itself out. As for crystal ballism, I'm going to invoke a rare (for me) WP:IAR citation. Hell, I'm liable to argue for deletion in a week or so when there will be a greater sobriety among the community, but I would like to wait 'til that time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is shown that the subject meets inclusion criteria, which seems more and more unlikely. Wikipedia is by nature a passionless, emotionless, cold, disintersted reference tool and, as much as the shootings sicken us all, we need to keep the good of the project in mind here and not let memorials creep in. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have articles for more than half the heads of state from 150 years ago. Are they suddenly not notable now, either? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, allow me to rephrase. It is a great coincidence that despite no one feeling her improtant enough to create an article before her death, they suddenly feel it neccesary to make one, and (accidently i am sure) forget to include any of her achievements. --Jimmi Hugh 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, a lot of people here are lazy, so they only write about things when there are a bunch of sources within easy arm's reach. That kind of thing tends to happen when people die (as ten thousand newspapers run obituaries), so a lot of bio articles here get written right after the subject's death. Like I said below, I don't have an opinion on Couture-Nowak's notability yet, but to make a determination purely on the basis of when the article was created is crazy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • . –Outriggr § 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that people are still really worked up about the tragedy, and that the article has been in existence for less than 24 hours, why not close this temporarily and re-assess once things have stabilized a bit? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll second, as clearly people aren't thinking along notability guidelines right now. It was rather silly of me to think that they would. I'll even close it as "no consensus" if someone thirds this motion, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. - BanyanTree 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I've said in the other AfD discussion, it is too early to delete these pages. Time needs to be given to see if they can be improved into a good article. The article itself is off to a good start, as it mentions her role in founding a notable school. So it's likely the article will turn out well. If not, it can be nominated later. GarryKosmos 02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. We don't know if the average person will, after the passage of time, remember any the victims, but sometimes one person stands out. For example, with the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, seven spaceflight participants died, but I think only one person, the teacher Christa McAuliffe, has remained notable or commonly remembered. For the 4/16 shootings, it may be Jocelyne Couture-Nowak who is remembered, or it may be someone else. It's too soon to delete this article.Que-Can 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike with the other professors, I've not seen anything saying that she was the writer of lots of impressive papers, or the author of any impressive books, or the recipient of any impressive awards. I think some of my college professors are really amazing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're notable, and even if she were amazingly good she's not thereby made noteworthy. And no, the cause of her death doesn't make her inherently notable either. Nyttend 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In fact, an MLA Bibliography search reveals not a single article or book under any version of her name I can find. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her former work describes her as a "French teacher". The BBC says "French instructor". I initially assumed that the link to her description at the VT French faculty page had quite properly been removed after the shootings, but the Internet Wayback Machine shows that she never had her own faculty page. While the article and several media sources describe her as a "French professor", the discrepancies highlight doubt as to if she had a doctorate. It is thus quite difficult to apply WP:PROF. - BanyanTree 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Many of the Delete comments are forgetting several important things. First, these articles have just been created (albeit it is possible by people whom do not know these individuals), so it takes time to transform a stub into a decent article. Second, the people who can best contribute to these articles are other professors and professionals ... however, we have day jobs and can not create well written and researched articles over night. I think we should play wait and see here. The primary difference between engineering professors and many other fields is the nature of the work is different enough. Being an engineer, I have a stronger feel of the worthiness of the engineering professors, but I am willing to say that my initial impression is that this article should stay as well. MCalamari 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT DXRAW 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This victim is noteworthy as being the only Canadian and Québecoise victim of this crime. The article will take shape in coming days and weeks. Various victims of other notorious incidents have been individually recognized (Columbine, et al) and this victim should be remembered as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jniel002 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete - not notable enough professor. Doesn't seem to have won any prestigious awards, publications not particularly impressive. Compared to Liviu Librescu, who was also a victim, it is a joke. I know it's not a competition and both article could be included, but this article doesn't meet notability, IMO. WP:NOT a memorial. -Bluedog423Talk 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability outside of getting shot. A murder victim does not a notable person make. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable for involvement in Monday's massacre. --musicpvm 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the other professor articles. If these people hadn't been involved with the Virginia Tech shooting, there would never have been articles. The primary basis thus seems to be about their involvement with the shooting, and what was that involvement? Being a victim? This can be easily mentioned in the main Virginia Tech shootings article, even if a short paragraph would be needed to describe the person's actions during this event (which may or may not be the case here). Tejastheory 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Just because some users might not like the reason for the subject's "notablity", doesn't change the fact it passes our increasingly strict inclusion standards. --Oakshade 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please add these published works to the article. The article currently has two links, the main subject of which is the shootings, but which mention this person. These are clearly not "features", as mentioned in "Multiple features in credible news media". I take strong exception to your implication that I believe that this person meets notability but am pretending otherwise for some ulterior motive. My sincere opinion is that nothing presented either here or on the article thus far establishes notability under any of the various criteria, though I more than half-expected a Wikipedian to find at least one clear reference by this point. - BanyanTree 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is almost certainly not notable as an academic scholar. Probably notable as a university teacher being killed on campus. (This is not a frequent occurrence, regardless of circumstances) In any case, certainly notable because of the circumstances. Yes, I think we will have articles on each. The first one proposed today Ryan C. Clark was apparently effectively deleted as a separate article, but the wrongness of what we were doing must not yet have been realized. If the public does not make the individuals notable, there will be time to delete them. I don't thing that's what will happen. WP is not primarily a memorial, but it some cases, its articles do serve very appropriately as a memorial for they record the public view., DGG 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable 76.109.163.61
  • Delete -- we should be clear headed -- this is not a moral question, we're not disrespecting this woman by not giving her her own article. It's a simple technical question, that, barring some extra substantive attention given to a high-profile murder victim, they do not deserve their own entry. Liviu Librescu's entry may have been prompted by the attention he sadly receives now, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have gotten an entry anyway, along with Kevin Granata -- these are the only names (besides the perp) who deserve their own articles. Pablosecca 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's seems like an arbitrary POV. If the topic is the primary subject of multiple published works, for whatever reason, it passes even our most strict guidelines. I don't know about others, but I personally am not claiming the person is "notable" for moral reasons. --Oakshade 07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That your for posting the link to the articles -- however, they were all written by virtue of her inclusion in the tragedy, and not because of her work during her life -- and they had a sort of "local focus" tone, as if meant for local sections of newspapers -- I just don't think that it's enough for notability -- we would have to give her that status before the recent events. --- Ironically the perpetrator of the massacre is notable for his act, because, macabre as it is to say it, that ended up being his life's work. I feel like reading Schöpenhauer ... Pablosecca 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, all of those articles focus directly on her work during her life. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "local focus" (I'm assuming you mean "local" as referring to the entire provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec, or perhaps all of Canada). Some users attempting to ignore or block out content of entire regions is exacly why Wikipedia's policy is to avoid systemic bias. --Oakshade 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per MCalamari --Witchinghour 08:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Squeakbox, Xoloz and Que-Can. I challenge all who voted otherwise to demonstrate how the world benefits from our deleting this article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because keeping it would set a precedent for the inclusion of all sorts of trivial articles on tragic victims, which cumulatively will degrade the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. Yes, we don't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we can start adding things wholesale just because "there's no harm in adding it" Tejastheory 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a memorial, even in times of sorrow. - Chardish 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Contrast this instance with the entry for Sarah Payne, who probably should be in Wikipedia. Payne's was a high-profile murder that inspired an important law, and other laws indirectly like Megan's Law for Megan Kanka. Also, Payne was the only victim, therefore we don't have the "no group" issues that we have with the Vtech incident. (why do I feel like the admissions dept of some club?) Pablosecca 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Renominate for deletion in six months. Lets just see how this whole incident pans out. I recommend creating an article on her husband, who does meet WP:PROF and attaching a merge tag to this article. A merge tag does not need to be acted upon quickly. Schools are notable, serious researchers are notable, but teachers are not usually notable. JeffBurdges 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she hadn't died this would have been prod'd without objection. Thousands of people are murdered every day and I can't see what makes her any more noteworthy than any other victim. If any sources that aren't obituaries - particualrly sources created when she was still alive - can be found then evaluate the article on the grounds of those, but as per Tejastheory above, WP:NOTPAPER isn't a carte blanche to create articles from every obituary in the paper - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because she can't be notable in death (Squeakbox) but because she wasn't the focus of the notable event that happened to involve her death. By the standard presented by many keepers, every single person who died in 9/11 is notable to have a Wikipedia page because they died in a notable event. That's clearly not a good standard to go by. Delete reasons: WP:NN, WP:PROF. Utopianheaven 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as much as I feel sorry for Professor Nowak and would like Madame Couture-Nowak to be kept in fond memory, I don't think she is a notable person by merit of her own achievements. She did have the extreme misfortune of being killed in a rather notable incident, but this can be dealt with within the incident's article (i.e. a short bio note for every victim anything relevant can be said about). PrinceGloria 11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely not notable for reasons other then the person's death. └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated immediately above. President David Palmer 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep While many people enjoy carrying the banner of WP:NN in the abstract as though one day someone comes along and awards you a certificate of notability, this article should be a speedy keep per WP:NN (Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" furthermore meeting all the notability criterion below), per WP:PAPER I don't think any single person will come along and say "Damn! Why was this article included?!", per WP:CSD and WP:DP the article does not meet the criteria "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", and per WP:IAR lighten up. Madcoverboy 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Jauerback 14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the École acadienne de Truro meets standards for notability, then (from what I read in the article under consideration) she should be mentioned there when that school's article is expanded from a stub to a full article. Otherwise, let her memorial be elsewhere. Does (or should) every individual victim of Columbine have his or her own page? Does (or should) every VT victim have his or her own page? Does (or should) every victim of 9/11 have his or her own page? All of these deaths are notable. That's why they are mentioned on Wikipedia... but they are typically NOT split into separate articles; rather, they are grouped together as short mentions in an article about the tragedy as a whole.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.9.120.8 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete as not passing WP:PROF. Or still better, redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Tizio 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. What she did doesn't make her notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. The fact that she died recently doesn't make her more notable than victims of other massacres. I suggest you create a dedicated Wiki for more "ordinal" people. I also suggest that you refrain from adding "speedy keep" votes since this AfD voting is valid. — JyriL talk 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, nominate for deletion in 3-6 months if nothing else about this woman pans out to make her famous.Lan Di 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the combination of her WP:PROF credentials and her highly publicised death covered by the media internationally make her notable. — Jonathan Bowen 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Mme Couture-Nowak fails to meet WP:PROF by and large, she was a French instructor at a higher education institution, and with all due respect to all the hard-working French teachers in the world, this hardly even makes her an academic. You would have never heard of her unless you had classes with her or worked for Virgina Tech, or knew Professor Nowak for that matter, if not for her tragic death. PrinceGloria 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's not the subject she taught (French) that is at question here. She fails to meet WP:PROF because she simply was not notable enough in the field. There are plenty of French professors (it appears she was only a lecturer, possibly without even a doctorate) who clearly meet WP:PROF. She does not appear to be one of of them. --Crunch 10:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above; I feel there's far too much of a rush to delete here. HipsterDad 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In some people's opinions, there has been too much rush to create new articles rather than building out existing articles to the point where the content warrants separation to a new article. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - How is this not suited for an encyclopedia? It's a person that was involved in an historic event, in more ways then one. I've seen pages on here devoted to total nonsense. Internet memes, old pranks, web sites, barely known companies... surely if Atlantic Southeast Airlines destinations and Qian Zhijun get to have articles, then so should this. Coolgamer 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not in favor of keeping any of those two you mentioned either, feel free to AfD them and I will support you. As concerns "being involved in a historic event" (btw, this event is rather moving and tragic, but I don't think it qualifies as historic), I do not think it is enough to become notable. Can you name all the people who were together in the bunker with Adolf Hitler in his last days, or how about an article for every passenger of the Titanic? PrinceGloria 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree with you there. It qualifies as "historic". --Oakshade 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a matter of opinion, but the more important issue here was outside the parentheses. PrinceGloria 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any event both record-breaking and covered by the media for almost over 24 hours qualifies as part of history. Coolgamer 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Part of history" does not equal "historic". Bill Cliton's extramarital affair was a major newsitem for months, and it still isn't "historic". I mean, it didn't change much in the history of the world, and I really don't think nearly as many history books wold refer to it as to the Gulf Wars or 9/11. Still, this is NOT the point here. The point is the person the article is about is not notable. PrinceGloria 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history is historic. If you don't think so, that's your opinion too. And the Clintion affair and impeachement is extremely historic that will likely be studied by history students as long as the US exists. You were the one who brought up the topic of the shootings being "historic" or not. --Oakshade 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Many events are historical, and yet we don't have articles on every single person involved in it. Tizio 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If the person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works like this person is, we do.--Oakshade 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • All those "nontrivial works" are either listings of people killed in the shooting or obituaries. She would've probably never appeared in the media given her achievements that we know of if not for her tragic death. It doesn't make her notable. PrinceGloria 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please read the sources before commenting on them. All of these non-trivial published works are primarily about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, not "listings" or about any of the other victims. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. This is the primarly "notability" criterion for WP:BIO --Oakshade 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Conversely, please read the entirety of my comments before replying. Those are exactly the kind of obituary-like pieces I was referring to. Some of them are also rather embarassing examples of low-quality journalism, but that's another thing and not that relevant. Anyway, they do not assure notability, as they only refer to some tidbits of Mme Couture-Nowak's bio a journalist could dig out to illustrate the "news" on her passing by. PrinceGloria 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You had charged the sources as being "are either listings of people killed in the shooting" and you seem to conceded that that was an incorrect statement. And these aren't even obituaries. The are articles by reporters and editors of major news outlets writing about this person as primary stories, not on the obituaries pages and certainly not just a blurb submitted by family members on the back obituaries page. --Oakshade 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • It was not an incorrect statement. I was referring to "nontrivial works" mentioning Jocelyne Couture-Novak in general, not whatever is linked from the article. Many of those do only mention the subject of the article listing the victims (even though, in strict sense, those are nontrivial works mentioning the person). Secondly, those kind of articles qualify as "obituaries" in my book, even if they aren't in the strictest sense. Those articles have only been created written because the person was killed in a highly-publicized incident, not because the person was notable herself, and do not assert her notability in any way. PrinceGloria 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • That just means you're employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the reasons the person is notable. If tyou think that major publications choosing to write multiple published works primarily about the person, (obituary or not) means the person is not "notable," then that's your POV. CBC News, Radio Canada, TQS and The Chronicle-Herald all dissagree and found her "notable" enough to write stories primarily about her.--Oakshade 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I believe it is plain obvious media only mentioned her because she was a victim of the shooting and information on her proved relatively easy to gather, while the news outlets needed to somehow fill the news slots assigned to this topic with some "new" info. Rather than try to bend the WP policies to serve a rather doubtful cause, I'd rather we employed some common sense here. That said, lex specialis derogat legi generali and I have just been reminded a relevant former exist in the form of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. PrinceGloria 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • It doesn't matter if you don't like the reasons they wrote about her (far more than "mentions" you claim), but the fact is multiple media outlets did. Notability is not subjective. We don't choose who is "notable", reliable sources do. --Oakshade 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • The stories you cite above do take Ms Couture-Nowak as a subject, but those aren't sufficient criteria. They are focusing on her as a way of elucidating the details of the tragedy. This is akin to someone doing a piece about what X student's personal experience was during the incident -- that random student does not then deserve her own page. To put it another way, the stories about Ms Nowak are not about her so much as they are about further reporting the tragedy. Pablosecca 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Elucidating? I had to look that one up. Actually, her being the primary subject of multiple non-trival published works is most certainly criteria. They are about her and her life, not at all akin to "X student's personal experiance was during the incident". Employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT as for the reasons of her being the subject of all those articles is not a proper reason to ingnore our strict inclusion criteria. --Oakshade 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • I fully accept that she is the subject of the articles you linked above. I also accept that they are about her and her life. Finally, let me say I like her and her article as such. But the simple fact is the articles were written as a result of her death. Other murder victims have their own individual pages, but in such cases they were made prominent (posthumously) by copious media attention for one reason or another. Cf., Megan Kanka, who gave her name to Megan's Law. Now: if in the next few weeks, some information comes to light about Mme Couture Nowak, and she gets attention from major news media or what have you, then she probably will be notable. Focus pieces (the articles you linked) don't suffice because they are inherently based upon the event, not the individual -- that is to say, take any nonfamous random professor in the world, put them in Couture Nowak's (tragic) position, and she/he'd still get the same attention -- not from the same sources, of course, but they'd get attention -- if she had been from Texas, local Texan papers would be writing articles about own of their own dying in such a public way. Got it? Pablosecca 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • I "got" that the multiple ariticles about her were inspired by her death. But that's just it, they're still written about her. We have the clause Notability is not subjective for a reason. We can't just arbitrarily apply our core guidelines to how we see fit. To say "Yes, she's notable and passes our guidelines, but I don't think the reason she passes our guildelines is suffeiciant" completely negates the existance of our core guidelines. If she was the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources, for whatever reason, she passes WP:N and WP:BIO very clearly. If you choose to WP:IGNORE our core guidelines and apply them arbitrarily, ie: "She passes WP:N and WP:BIO only because of her death", then its an example of how frivolous our guidelines are. --Oakshade 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • (edit conflict)The impeachment is, the affair not so, I guess. I mean, if we didn't know anything about the whereabouts of Miss Lewinsky and the kinky details of whatever happened in the Oval Room, we could still study the legal case. I do like this discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that the article is eligible for deletion anyway. PrinceGloria 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All sentimentality put aside, this individual does not warrent an article because of lack of notability by her own merits. The only reason why an article was created for her was due to her untimely death in a horrible tragedy, and yet we do not have articles for the other victims -- because of notability issues. Just because she was an instructor does not make her notable; she fails WP:PROF. The reason why there are not articles for every single victim in any massacre should apply to this individual in question. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable for reasons other than her death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingOfExtreme (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. Sufficiently notable. --Eastmain 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:PROF. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Even pushing for a school to be opened, by a provincial agency, is not real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. The main article on the shootings should cover it; there will be plenty of victim memorials in appropriate places. Ckessler 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:PROF. TomTheHand 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, WP:PROF. Flavourdan 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MAKES NO SENSE - why is SHE deleteable when Kevin Granata and Liviu Librescu, also instructors killed in the massacre, are not? Illogical!! HeberMK 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep Around For the love of God, she's one of only a few faculty victims in a histori shooting, has some notability for professional achievements, and because of the media coverage, people WILL want to learn more about her for at least the time being. Y'all shouldn't be so quick to delete! We must always err on the side of INCLUSION! --172.166.196.253 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PROF does NOT apply here as this professor's notability is not contingent on acadamic standing. Re-evaluate again later. I believe she is notable as the victim of the worst school shooting in US History. This issue is too emotionally charged right now to be fairly evaluated. Eclectek C T 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue seems emotionally charged only on the "keepers" side. I don't see much emotions in the, rather valid, arguments for deletion based on WP policies. If WP:PROF does not apply (and the article doesn't meet it anyway), then it has been already established that the person in question is not notable on her own. PrinceGloria 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope that these "let's keep it and see how it pans out" opinions are regarded as invalid by the administrator, as they don't state a valid policy reasoning.Pablosecca 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is not notable; would be willing to reconsider if additional evidence were produced. --ElKevbo 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a memorial, does not meet WP:PROF. MSJapan 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Next time I get pounced on for wanting to keep an article topic that's not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary crierion of WP:NOTABILITY (and belive me, deletionists will pounce hard), I'll point to this AfD as an example of the arbitrary relevancy of our inclusion guidelines.--Oakshade 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't like "wait and see" only because it leads to inclusion of people like Kristi Yamaoka and an inability to delete them despite years going by without a mention of them, and no work done on the article except in the news-blast aftermath of an incident, basically because someone thinks that it's OK to keep them if they don't meet guidelines. What we need is a prohibition or moratorium on creating these types of articles in the first place within hours of an event - if time elapses and the subject is still relevant, that's a different story. MSJapan 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO, and is notable. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Where this appears to conflict with "not a memorial", the primary criterion takes priority. She is now the multiple non-trivial published works, regardless of whether she was before. --Eastmain 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Couture-Nowak is the object of several articles in credible news media (which primarily reference her, not the shooting). Therefore she is notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability and is independently notable of the shooting event. Furthermore, were we to merge all her biographical details into the Virginia Tech massacre article, this would not add to readers' understanding of the shooting. Keeping them here adds to readers' understanding of Couture-Nowak. Greenshed 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the above comments i realize that people who want to delete this are cynical. But seriously, WP guidelines say, WP is not the place to honor people who have recently died. The subject's notability should have been claimed BEFORE her death - OR - something remarkable about her should have occured in the incident. Keeping this is abuse of WP. Medico80 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those are the wisest words written here. That said, I tend to believe at least some of the people aredntly advocating keeping are being pretty cynical in fact. PrinceGloria 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually many people have articles here based on having being murdered Amanda Dowler being one of them, and these articles have been here months and years. So how is this an abuse of WP when notability established by the nature of death has so much precedent here (at least hundreds of articles), SqueakBox 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I loathe drawing such comparisons, but with all due respect, the death of Amanda Dowler and subsequent investigations give her a substantially better claim to notability than our subject here. Her death was moving and tragic, but at the end of the day there isn't much more to say about it that she was shot by a psychically unstable man among many other victims that day, while no other element of her biography makes her notable in any way. I must say I really find it emotionally revolting to write about a recently deceased person that way... PrinceGloria 23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect, redirects are cheap, no afd necessary. dab

(𒁳) 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep BrenDJ 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember this is not a vote. This is a search for consensus regarding policy. If you have a particular perspective, please elucidate it with a rationale. Pablosecca 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable academic. Victim of VT shooting can be covered in Virginia Tech massacre. Crunch 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming people-articles need to be assessed by notability REGARDLESS of death, and that death MAY make one notable REGARDLESS of other notability tests, I believe that this article should be kept for now, and then the community should consider MERGING people of lesser notability into the main incident's article, or make another article titled "victims of virginia tech massacre". Notable professors should keep their article. Furthermore, I'd like to add that if space is not the issue, then we should keep ALL articles as is, as long as they are properly written. Romancer 18th April 2007
  • Strong Keep Deserves to be remembered. --132.170.35.167 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Every deceased person deserves to be remembered, but they don't all get an article in this encylopedia. They have to pass certain notability standards. My uncle Phil and my childhood dog, Spot, both also deserve to be remembered, but they're not getting articles here. --Crunch 10:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very non-notable - she's just a teacher! Just because she was killed in a school shooing does not deem her notable enough for an article. Weatherman90 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy DeleteThis article was created as a reaction to the VT shootings, the history itself says created from "news sources" unreliable at best, there's not even a published date of birth for this person!? Shabby original research at best, this article isn't fair in doing the subject justice in such close relation and association to the VT shootings. This person can and will be remembered without the help of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.215.101 (talk • contribs) 19:39, April 18, 2007 — 76.23.215.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete/Merge NN, should be consolidated with other victims TSim 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete eventually--yes; delete this week,no. Delete when it makes good sense to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.198.210 (talk • contribs) 21:22, April 18, 2007 — 76.5.198.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete as per many arguments stated above, as been only known as because she was a victim of the shooting--JForget 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I love teachers just as much as anyone and I really feel terrible for her and her family. But there cannot be articles for all the victims and there can't be articles for all teachers. She didn't seem to be a full professor and didn't have any published works. It's been a day and anyone could have added more research at this point. Perhaps she could have mention in her husband's article; he seems to meet notability standards. She was notable as a very nice French teacher, but she is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Gloriamarie 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Her only notability was her death and that can be mentioned elsewhere, like her husband's page or the victims page. Death is not a criterion of WP:PROF GizzaChat © 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, clearly meets the notability standard due to press coverage. Possibly merge onto a consolidated victims page in the future, if such a page would not be excessively long (I suspect it might be). Everyking 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Not otherwise notable aside from how she died. As Gloriamarie states, we cannot have articles for all the victims simply because of the manner in which they were killed - there has to have been notability prior to the death (although not in all cases, but this isn't really a special case), and there doesn't seem to be any. We are not a breaking news source - that is what Wikinews is for - and we aren't a memorial, either. --Coredesat 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter why she's notable, but the fact is she is notable and passes the letter of WP:N through mulitiple publshed works by reliable sources being primarily about her. --Oakshade 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it does matter very much. Wiki policies are written as guidelines, and not immutable laws - it is rather frequent that two policies would be in conflict, such as WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (to some extent) here. What you need to do is just use common sense to figure out what would the spirit of the regulations in question suggest. Perhaps this whole discussion signifies the need for a slight alteration of WP:BIO, but it doesn't change the fact that the person in question became of interest to the media solely because her tragic death, which does not make her notable. PrinceGloria 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's rendering the very core inclusion criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as frivolous. To say "Well, this topic might be notable and pass WP:N, but it should be deleted because [insert arbitrary argument]" is a demonstration of the farcical application of our own guidelines . What if somebody wants to keep an article topic that has absolutely no published works about it? Can they say "WP:N is only a guideline, so it should be kept because [insert arbitrary argument]"? I doubt anyone but the most ardent inclusionists wouldn't stand for that. The fact is this person is the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources, whether we like the reason she's the subject of all of those works or not. Notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 09:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now, what we have here is WP:BIO standing in opposition to WP:MEMORIAL on the issue - it is not an arbitrary argument, it is a standing WP policy. Actually, WP:BIO and all notability guidelines are, well, guidelines, and thus are somehow less "powerful" than WP policies, if you prefer to go legal about it. But in my understanding such conflicts should be resolved using common sense. It is fairly obvious why the media wrote about Mme Couture-Nowak - no matter how many details they dug out (and there weren't that many of them), it was still all about a victim of the shooting, not a notable persona on its own. It has nothing to do with me liking it or not, it just is that way. Or would you be willing to prove she was ACTUALLY notable (WP criteria aside) for anything else than her tragic death? PrinceGloria 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • While the primary inclusion criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are adhered to and WP:MEMORIAL is a sub-clause buried in the page WP:NOT, it isn't in opposition to our most basic of inclusion fundamentals that this topic passes. Besides WP:MEMORIAL doesn't even apply here. Read the text of it in full... "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered."... This article wasn't written about somebody's grandpa that otherwise had no published works about them. That's what WP:MEMORIAL was written for to prevent and doesn't at all apply to Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. It doesn't in any way negate article topics that have been the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources.--Oakshade 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my mind, Wikipedia has as its main strength the fact that it is able to quickly adapt to the proliferation of information that is available in the "information age". I don't see the rush to delete a person who sadly passed away in a highly topical event. To my mind, this makes the page notable. Later, after the dust has settled, notability can be revisited and it can be put up for deletion again like other minor participants in historic events. Dr Aaron 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment - well, one of Wikipedia's unwritten features is the ability to filter the overabundance of infotrash typical for the information age and retain only what is really valuable. As to your last sentence, the notability guideline clearly states that notability does not change with time, so if the person is not notable, she will not be - unless we will learn of something that would make her notable, in which case an article can of course be created. PrinceGloria 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indeed, even in times of sorrow WP is not a memorial.. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My condolences. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Bluerです。 なにか? 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think it is utterly clear that the subject of this article fits the criteria in WP:N. This shows that WP:N needs to be rethought. In the meantime, let's apply Ignore All Rules; it obviously wasn't *meant* to be covered by the notability policy, and we shouldn't treat it as if is regardless of what the literal wording demands. Ken Arromdee 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was a notable victim IMHO --Vlad|-> 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete and redirect to List of victims of Virginia Tech massacre page. Though I disagree with most of the proposed deletions of the prod-happy people who have proposed deletion on just about everything else having to do with the shootings outside the main article itself, in this case I find that unlike three other profs who died there who have their own articles, Ms. Couture-Nowak does not have sufficient notability per WP:BIO to warrant her own article, & is sufficiently covered in the List of victims article. --Yksin 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On further reading of WP:BIO criteria for notability (which of course are just a guideline anyway, not a policy, & currently much disputed), I have decided to change my vote back to keep. Regardless of how "notable" she was by those criteria prior to her death, the circumstances of her death may render her notable in a manner beyond simple memorialization. Some recent coverage has indicated that her actions when her class was under attack are also worthy of note. --Yksin 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While this person is not notable for anything except being murdered, we do have articles on 'college football players' noted for 'dying of heatstroke' or gunshot victim. So, even though I think a person like this is not notable, Wikipedia is already watered down far enough to make this article acceptable. The bottom line: Wikipedia replaces 'expertism' with 'popularity by the masses.'R Young {yakłtalk} 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No, we simply haven't got around to deleting every non-notable person from the site. But please do place links to non-notable people noted only for their death on my talk page and i will make sure i put them up for deletion. Policy, not mass stupidity is the usual choice for these things. --Jimmi Hugh 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deletes above. Fails WP:PROF. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Resolute 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep This person is of great significance because of her Canadian identity. This is one of the main things that links Canada to the Virginia Tech massacre. I think that many Canadians have been very involved with following this event because of her. It is precisely because this woman with a proud French-Canadian identity died in this massacre that the RCMP and the Canadian government are now taking steps to protecting schools in Canada. If you have any doubt of the notability of this person just type her name into Google News or see the "Further Reading" section on the bottom of her page and see the numerous articles just on this one individual... it outsurpasseses all the other victims by far. The media, but most especially the Canadian media saw it fit to have lengthy articles on just this one person. Why not here?HelpfulUser 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, our notability policy says that 'Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".' and '"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."' By the literal wording of the policy, she's in fact notable, despite not being famous or important, because there are articles about her. The policy is just broken. Ken Arromdee 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. I ran up against a similar problem a few months ago while trying to have Al Gore III deleted. Like many of the VT victims, he hasn't really done anything notable himself, but he attracted independent media attention anyway for reasons beyond his control (i.e. the identity of his father). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She sounds like a fine person, and her death was tragic. The same applies to thousands of people who are murdered every year, but Wikipedia is not a memorial book. She does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. My views correspond to the essay WP:NOTNEWS, that an event may be newsworthy without being a suitabe topic for an encyclopedia. When the references all are related to a single news event their affirmation of notability is questionable. See also WP:N where Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Her part in the events on Norris that day should be included in the main article.Edison 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep loads of info here that is published and not suitble in other articles, therefore it is notable as an article on its own. There is also minimal repitition to other articles (good work to the contributers). +mwtoews 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as DGG V1t 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, not a memorial, not an obituary 199.94.78.104 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People will want to know about the victims of this event. It's informative and notable. (Bjorn Tipling 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep She appears to barely meet the primary notability criterion, namely that she is the subject of multiple independently published articles. I should mention this is a very weak keep, however, since the references do not appear to cover much of a time span. References should appear over more than a brief span of time to ensure true independence among the sources and that the article isn't simply a bit of localized zeitgeist on a particular subject. By the way, note that deleting this biography doesn't mean the pertinent material on her can't be merged into an appropriate article about the event. So even if this article is deleted that doesn't prevent the important facts of the article from appearing in Wikipedia. Finally note that just because an event is notable doesn't mean that everyone involved is notable. Thousands of people died in the September 11, 2001 attacks but that doesn't mean we should have an article about every single victim. So as a general rule just because a particular crime receives massive international attention doesn't mean that every single victim of the crime needs a seperate article. Dugwiki 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dugwiki. Much of the coverage is not just about her in relation to the massacre, but about her life in general. If this article is deleted, I ask that we all be honest with ourselves and recognise that deletion in this case is a rather clear case of invoking WP:IAR. The argument that "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't hold water in this case as it makes a clear exception for people who meet the notability criterion. -- Black Falcon 17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no objection to merging highlights into main VT incident article) While the event was notable, the person isn't on her own. If we end up with articles about multiple victims, I'd have no objection into merging into a List of VT Victims article if there isn't one already.
  • Keep per Dugwiki RaveenS 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - isn't this part enough? "was instrumental in establishing the École acadienne de Truro, the area's first French language public school under the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial." to have her considered notable, and then added to her courageous actions during recent events?Justanothermutt 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Participating in the establishment of a public school? No, not enough. And "courageous actions"? She was gunned down and there is no basis for saying that she saved anyone. Sorry, she is just a victim.Medico80 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - I'm pretty new to this (and excited to learn and be a part of the wikipedia community), so I don't know all the ins and outs of what would be 'notable' enough and such - When I read "instrumental in establishing", it seems a bit more than just "participating"..?.. The 'courageous actions' part, I was going from what I read in the current article about her trying to save her students and losing her life in the process... Justanothermutt 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it, change it, take the facts of her life accomplishments and write a good article about the lady who started a french school in what was once Acadia and is now Nova Scotia. look at it closely

  • Comment If you read WP:BIO, you find the sentence "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While the coverage for Couture Nowak may not have been trivial, it is strictly incidental. The Oxford English Dictionary defines incidental as " 1. a. Occurring or liable to occur in fortuitous or subordinate conjunction with something else of which it forms no essential part; casual." This individual's notability is subordinate to the narrative of the tragedy at VTech. Pablosecca 04:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The multiple non-trivial published works about this person are all focused on her life and work, not an "incident". An incident inspired the reliable sources to write about this person, but that in no way makes the content of all the published works about her "incidental." --Oakshade 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course the newsitems go beyond her being killed, as the description of that fact would hardly exceed the length of one sentence, but the fact is that, as of now, she is only of interest to the media due to her recent killing. If reports on her would appear in the media over a longer span of time, I guess it would make a better claim for notability. As of now, the coverage is "incidental". PrinceGloria 09:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oy. I give up. Pablosecca 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least for now. Does not pass WP:PROF, this is not the place for all victims from all killings or attacks around the world and time will show if she will pass WP:N. ArchStanton 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:PROF --24.200.156.62 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC) — 24.200.156.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per SqueakBox --Rita Moritan 13:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:PROFInsufficient notability. I almost regret I wasn't there to be killed and hence become notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia.--Kamikaze 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Youngamerican makes a good argument although the way he says it sounds almost like a deliberate caricature, but the basic idea holds true. BanyanTree, Rbelln, Nyttend and María also make good points. It appears that even the people advocating keeping acknowledge at this point that the article does not meet WP:PROF. The argument must therefore be made under WP:BIO. However, longstanding precedent is that in general victims of tragedies whose lives are reported in detail merely due to their being victims of horrific events does not count for purposes of WP:BIO. See WP:MEMORIAL as well as many precedents set by among other things, the myriad of Sept 11 AfDs and many articles about individuals who have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Cases like Sarah Payne are different because her death led directly to knew laws and regulations named after her. I strongly doubt that there will be any Couture-Nowak law made after this. This woman died tragically, and maybe even would have become a notable academic in her field if she had survived. However, she does not at present meet standard inclusion criteria. JoshuaZ 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - she nobly defended her students; had she been a soldier she would have been awarded a medal. What is not notable about such a death in such circumstances? --DevelopedMadness 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet Another Strong Keep for all of the many compelling and convincing reasons given above. This accomplished instructor, one of only a few professors killed in a historically and news-worthy disaster definitely merits encylopedic attention as well. --24.154.173.243 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encyclopedia articles are not dispensed as means of recognition. I actually believe the rather laughable attempts of purporting exceptional qualities to Mme Couture-Nowak are in fact almost insulting her as a person killed in such circumstances... PrinceGloria 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes. <KF> 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please also note this is NOT a vote, but a discussion. The decision would be made based on WP policies and guidelines and not personal convitions of whether the person in question is "worthy" or anything. The controversy here ensues as to the interpretation of policies and guidelines, so it would be good to get acquainted with them before joining the discussion. PrinceGloria 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's leave it at that. I'm not going to teach you about Wikipedia policies, and you are certainly not going to teach me about them. <KF> 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your above comment is the exact antithesis of an actual discussion. It presumes an inability and unwillingness to either exchange ideas or consider changing your mind. It is not at all helpful. JoshuaZ 00:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank God Wikipedia policy is vague on the notability criterion. If it were not, there wouldn't have been any need, or place, for the above discussion. While it's true that Jocelyne Couture-Nowak probably wouldn't have her own article today if she hadn't been killed, her death is not the only reason for the article. As I see it, some notability and her violent death in a well-documented shooting add up and influence each other so that her article is justified. This is my opinion, and I have expressed it in just one sentence: "worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes". This, I believe, does not express any inability or unwillingness to change my mind. Rather, it expresses what I think about this matter at the moment. The "You have your opinion, I have mine" refers to the preceding sentence, i.e. to whether I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies or not: PrinceGloria suggests I'm not, whereas I think I am. <KF> 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see what you say. For me, the acid test (or maybe that's too strong a phrase), or the big factor, is if I when I read an article, there's a sort of center or call it hook, to the article, which makes one go "Ah yes, that's why it's here." When I read the present subject's entry, I see a lot of details and bio notes, and I feel very much for the woman, but her reason for separate inclusion, the VTech incident, to me reads a footnote more than anything. Pablosecca 10:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. People are coming to Wikipedia to search for her name specifically; clearly she's notable. She founded a school in Nova Scotia and acted heroically to protect her VT students. Fellow VT faculty victim Granata didn't found anything yet his entry isn't up for deletion. I'm tempted to call this misogyny. --Gisaster25 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Don't play the misogyny card just yet; I think the thinking is that Granata has been called prominent in his field, (eg, | Granata is a world expert) while Librescu performed a widely hailed feat of heroism -- and therefore both merit their own articles; whereas; the other professors were accomplished, or they would be professors, of course; but not notable in their own right to deserve mention outside the VTech article. Founding a school in NS isn't enough; and there are tens of thousands of professors in the world. Thoughts? Pablosecca 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree the misogyny claim is unfounded, but Librescu is not being included because of claims of heroism. He meets and exceeds WP:PROF. If Couture:Nowak did, there would be little argument about her inclusion. --Crunch 10:16, 22 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadian Del Sol

[edit]
Arcadian Del Sol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable - a blogger who once wrote for a notable web site (now closed). I believe the site, which had a large number of writers, is notable, but not every individual involved. I came across this page while editing the Wikipedia article for Lum the Mad Hobson 23:48, 17 April 2007 (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 per consensus. fishhead64 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casathious Jones

[edit]
Casathious Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article seems like a hoax, and it's not sourced at all. Fails WP:NOR and WP:ATT. Delete The article also violates WP:AUTO. The proof.GreenJoe 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - well, Googling turns up nothing, outside of a single Amazon account - where he appears to enjoy Christmas music and classic singers. His records, and label, produce no GHits, the link to his Last.fm page returns "Sorry, this artist does not have a profile", and the IMDB entry lists him as being an extra in a decidedly trivial film. This is probably half a hoax, and half simply utter non-notablility. In either case, it's gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 00:33Z
  • Do Not Delete I know Casathious personally, and he is well-loved in the community. He is an amazing singer and entertainer, and he has infact done all of the things listed in the artical. If you google Casathious Jones, he DOES pop up several different times. Infact, he is on YouTube as well. The reason his records and lable do not show GHits, is that they are only locally know in Rochester, New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct14 (talk • contribs) — Oct14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • That doesn't justify the lack of sources for the article. If you can improve it, then great. GreenJoe 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete I am Casathious Jones, and as myself I deserve to plead my own case! I have made numerous CDs and I have addressed the issue of the lack of references. Now I have an excess of three references. Despite this, select others refuse to accept these references, although they are from admittedly reliable sources. In fact, if one is to look at famous people on Wikipedia, one will find that many a page has fewer references than my article (e.g. Debbie Reynolds, who has only one reference). Although I am by no means the star that Debbie Reynolds has come to be, it is undeniable that the article cites ample references. In my own defense, I am certainly not the only person who has edited and added to the article and keeping with Wikipedia's high standards, I continually delete material which, although true, cannot be proven. In conclusion, although my CDs have sold many copies, and I realize that I am not a legendary star, I still feel that this article should be acceptable to any who may come across it. By no means do I want this to be a self-promoting and biased article about myself and my successes, but I do want an encyclopedic reference such as this to be available for any who desire to find information about me, as one would search for any other person in such a manner, and I see no solid reason for its deletion. Thank you, Casathious Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs) — R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete I have several of Casathious's CDs and have seen him live in concert. I don't think I can improve the article but as far as I can tell everything on it is true and I know that it is not a hoax. Sajbmz — Sajbmz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • That's not enough to satisfy WP:V. GreenJoe 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree entirely. Many articles cannot verify every mundane detail that is presented in them, but they have not been under as much scrutiny as the article currently in question. In fact, I feel, as do most others, that this article does a more than satisfactory job of referencing sources. --R.h.c.afounder1 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not an excuse for this one to not properly cite. I'm still not satisfied that Casathious Jones is a real person. See WP:WAX GreenJoe 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought that argument as to whether I exist or not had been cleared up ages ago. I am a real person, as we have already decided upon. I have a Social Security number, a passport, a birth certificate, et cetera. Granted, Casathious Jones is a pseudonym; my legal name is Casey Jones Costello. But that is no secret. --74.69.116.41 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — 74.69.116.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • How many comments must we make in order to meet your standards for edits of other topics? I notice you only happened to place that bulletin on users who spoke up for me. Had they agreed with your point of view, GreenJoe, I suspect you would not have placed such a bulletin on their comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.116.41 (talk • contribs)
          • Had they voiced their opinion to delete and had only contributed to this article, they'd have it too. GreenJoe 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But my point is the users who have stuck up for me have not only contributed to this one article. If you look at them, they have all contributed to many. Granted, they do not have as many edits as you, but they still have many. Therefore I am unsure of why you are doing what you are doing; please address this in your next response. --R.h.c.afounder1 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely nn. Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom, fails all relevant policies. Thewinchester (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Janejellyroll, according to WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." The article in question meets this criteria, and whether or not you have heard of Casathious Jones is irrelevant.--74.69.116.41 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 74

[edit]
UFC 74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Crystal Ballery per WP:NOT#CBALL. Only generic information is known about event, the rest is rumored. Sole source on the page points to a rumors page. Prod removed without rationale. hateless 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Avenue School

[edit]
New Avenue School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not demonstrate notability, nor is it cited.—— Eagle101 Need help? 01:31, 18 April 2007 (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.
  1. ^ Pacifica Woman Charged For Assaulting Gay Couple With Produce KTVU.com, a fox affiliate (15 April 2007)
  2. ^ Not guilty plea in alleged hateful fruit tossing by Michelle Durand, The Daily Journal (San Mateo, California) (April 16 2007)
  3. ^ Woman accused of tossing fruit at gays by Brian Foley, San Francisco Examiner (March 6, 2007 3 AM PST)
  4. ^ Profiles of some of the victims - International Herald Tribune
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_17&oldid=1116721752"