The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete A7. --ais523 10:38, 26 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 this current version. Replace with either redirect or disamb which may require further discussion, if nessecary. - Mailer Diablo12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) On 18:03, 18 April 2007 the above "Al-Bargit" edited the article, and then 22 minutes later he claims that its poooorly written. Do you want to say Al-Bargit that you made it poorly written? I understand your frustration when you want to do something for humanity and the other reverting you. Is the rejection of single human what prompts you to this aggression against humanity?
2) I noticed that is exactly one month since you removed the "peace" infobox from you user page. :)
3) If you want to cover your vandalism/destruction evidenced in page history... Right deleting this article will delete your "contribution", but also numerous contributors who edited the subject since 2002. I understand to delete some new nonessential entries but not important (as I presume) to all humans description of Humanity!
(Following Nasz's numbered bullets) (1) On 18:03, 18 April 2007, Al-Bargit did, indeed, replace the article with this page, disambiguating the term. He did so after numerous attempts in February to redirect the article to the page human. Both he and Debollweevil were involved in this attempt to redirect. When Al-Bargit's edit in April was reverted, he tagged the article AfD. As such, there was no suggestion by Al-Bargit that he “made [the article] poorly written” and there is no sign of “ aggression against humanity.” (2 and 3) I do not understand what either of these points have to do with the discussion at hand. Both are Ad hominem arguments, and thus, fallacious. If any of Al-Bargit's edits actually looked like “vandalism/destruction”, there would be reason to call the good faith of his AfD nomination in question, as you do below by suggesting he wanted to “cover his vandalism/destruction evidenced in page history.” However, all of Al-Bargit edits were clearly made in good faith. Page History: It is worth noting that redirects of the sort attempted by Al-Bargit had been attempted as early as 17:35, 8 November 2003. It remained a redirect until the revision by Freemarket on 11:14, 8 October 2006. However, the material added by Freemarket was part of the human article since at least. 00:49, 26 September 2006. On 16:25, 26 January 2007, user Silence must have noticed this and again changed the page to a redirect. Thus, it seem clear that the current material is merely trying to rebuild the old article which was clearly moved from the human article. Final Notes Seeing this page history, it seems clear to me that the current material must go. As I have stated previously, a redirect to human or human nature will not be sufficient. Thus again I propose we post a disambiguation page similar to the one posted by Al-Bargit on 18:03, 18 April 2007. For a draft of this page see this page: User:Fixer1234/Humanity. Fixer123423:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I do not see errors in my text above.
2) I think that the worst case of aggression against 'this humanity' is to erase it from server memory.
3) I see logical inequality between meaning human and humanity. If human = humanity why are millions of people for hundreds of years use 2 words? Who can't see a clear logical distinction between human and humanity?
Revert Seems to have at one time been a halfway-decent article that was vandalised. I dunno which version was the absolute best, but this one is at least substantially better than the garbage that's there now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one's hard to say. On one hand, it is seemingly the subject of an edit war, in which one user sees fit to add gibberish that almost looks like Engrish. On the other hand, it seems redundant to other content. Either way, I am all for a delete, then redirect to Human being, if GFDL will allow it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: The current article should be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation. A redirect to human or human nature will not be sufficient, as humanity has multiple distinct and notable meanings. Please see User:Fixer1234/Humanity for a draft of a replacement for this page. I believe it has already been noted that the usable material in the older version of the page has been merged. Given this, I firmly recommend the current article be speedily replaced by my new page.Fixer123423:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aecis what is the [human race] you propose in your reverted edition. if you realy mean race then only one or all [human races]. I dont think , strting article on humanity with race is good starting point. Do you realy think you Aecis reverting point is the best one? If yes what do you mean by the [human race] ?
Aecis propose revert to point strting with words. Humanity refers to the human race or mankind as a whole, to that which is characteristically human, or to that which distinguishes human beings from other ...
Sidenote: To whomever asked the question above: “Human race” is a relatively common term referring to all human beings. It is is synonym of humankind. Fixer123422:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The current stance of the article serves little purpose. With that said, the Human article is quite long and splitting the information that was merged in it out back to Humanity may not be a bad idea. But the current state can not exist. MECU≈talk12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I'd like to reiterate, that due to “humanity's” multiple meanings, a simple redirect will not be sufficient. Article which pertain to the varied meanings of humanity already exist on wikipedia. Thus, what is needed is a page with links to this material. See my previous post for a link to my draft of such a page. Fixer123401:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have seen the disambiguation page by Fixer1234, and I agree that directing the term to a page like that is probably the best solution, since the term does have multiple meanings. ◄Zahakiel►20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The “indictor abandoning the court" should have no bearing on this AfD. Either he or she was justified in nominating this article for deletion or not. The material I have just posted above, I think, shows he or she was justified. While my proposal is that the page be replaced with something like this instead of being deleted, I think Al-Bargit was right to bring this issue to our attention. Fixer123423:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
formal question : It seems that indictor in absentia appears in trail. Should the pursuit in deletion of Humanity continue? Nasz17:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethis article which is content-free and has no references. However if someone could write a totally different article which was properly refed and actually said something it could be useful. NBeale05:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a viable option, but it does not take care of the redundancy problem. Various editors (who've posted to this page) have noted the redundant nature of the current humanity article. The articles human and human nature already contain any info that might be incorporated into an article that follows the outline of the current version of the humanity article. I think we can predict that any full fledged article that appears in this space will follow an outline similar to the current article. (And as I have noted in other posts, the current article appears to be trying to "rebuild" an older version of the article that doubled material from the culture and society sections of the human article.) -- A such, this option will not work unless we move this material out of the human article and into the humanity article. (I think MECU mentioned this option.) However, previous editors seem to have vetoed such a move. (See my recount of the article's history above.) -- More importantly, as I have said before, humanity has at least 3 common and notable but distinct meanings in English. (Again, see User:Fixer1234/Humanity.) As such, I really think our best option is to replace the current article with a disambiguation. Fixer123404:44, 24 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.
Seeing as the entry said: "He recently won S.I.N. Magazine's (A Radio trade magazine) Music Director Of The Year Award", I don't think it's a speedy. Posting here for more eyes. Mgm|(talk)12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search for the trade magazine turns up nothing useful other than what appear to be pornographic links and IMDB searches, so I can't rely on that this magazine is much of a radio broadcaster trade mag. That, and I don't remember seeing it at any of the trade schools I've visited, amidst the copies of ARB. Need something more than a blurb on KDON's page and a Myspace link. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. If we can somehow verify that this guy does work at the station in question, then get his real name, it could be that we can verify some of the things said in the article.... Postcard Cathy14:15, 17 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, WjBscribe00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Radio station managers aren't inherently notable, and winning employee of the week/month/year does not make one notable. - BierHerr01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't notable, and appears to be just promotion for the article's topic. Fails WP:BIO. MySpace is not a decent source, as anyone can have a MySpace page. Acalamari02:00, 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe00:16, 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The assertions of notability in the article suggest he may meet the notability standards (mostly his advocacy for the pacific islands), needs references. -- Monty84503:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He holds high offices in organizations that appear to be notable, although notability hasn't been established for PATARA. --76.202.59.11603:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think he's more N than the organization. (The organization is N only because its the only one in the geographic area--he seems to have wider recognition)DGG03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Very Weak Keep The person seems to be notable, but the article needs to cite its references. Moreover the article needs improvements like the content under Other Activities and Affiliations and Positions should be in chronological or reverse chronological order. Mayank Abhishek05:31, 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 Redirected to degaussing as the clear primary topic for this search phrase. Also added hatlink to target article to link to both band and album for disambiguation. No assertion was raised for this song to have article-level notability separate from its parent album. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entry fails the Wikipedia:Notability (music) standards, and also creates confusion with preexisting term that should have the default entry Bricology18:30, 12 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, WjBscribe00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move song information to the album's own page, assuming it's notable. If it's not delete. It clearly shouldn't be at this default location though. If it is kept, I recommend making this a disambig as suggested above. Otherwise redirect. FrozenPurpleCube03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Degaussing, create a new page "Deguassing (album)", and reference it at the top of the Degaussing page. I agree that someone entering this term is more likely to be looking for the tape-erasing tool rather than the album.--76.202.59.11603:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly recommend deleting this article and putting a disambig there. There's nothing special about this song that couldn't have been covered the article about the album, if that is even justifiable. The term with reference to electromagnetic fields is much more prominant. Kevin_b_er04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Disambiguation The page can be kept as a disambiguation page and the article moved to a new page like Degaussing (Song) or Degaussing (Album). Mayank Abhishek05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or move to Degausser (song) and make a disambiguation page for a generic Degausser, with links to the electronic tool or process, and also the album / song / band / whatever. It may look dumb to have a disambig page with only 2 entries, but it is conceivable that some Wikireaders who know the music, will not know that there is such a device as a degausser; and similarly there are probably many electronic folk who have no idea that there is a song with the same name as one of their tools. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:58, 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.
Delete As a whole, these genres do not have much of a connection between one another. Word suffixes are irrelevant to music, so this serves no purpose for anyone other than pointless trivia. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)23:55, 17 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, WjBscribe00:17, 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.
Reply. "For years, Bolton represented Rapides Parish, including Alexandria, on the Louisiana Democratic State Central Committee." The DSCC is statewide and consists of 144 elected members. -- Billy Hathorn19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may not have been a political position, but "Bolton was president of the Louisiana Bankers Association from 1916-1917" is certainly a noteworthy statewide position and both a seat on a board and a school have been named after him. I fail to see non-notability here. Non-notable people aren't covered in things like "A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography". He had statewide importance at least. - Mgm|(talk)08:26, 13 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, WjBscribe00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory of Biography. A local biographical directory is not a measure of N. To have been the president of the ABA for a year would have been notable. All the other criteria listed are local, and the only one he was actually president of was the local hospital board. He is probably more N than some of the minor Louisiana politicians, but that is hardly a good argument. DGG04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. What can I say? The Boltons are to modern Alexandria like Captain John Smith was to Jamestown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Well, I just went back to sign, and you beat me to the punch. Billy Hathorn01:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Must one be involved in "foreign policy" then, by your claim, to be in Wikipedia? And certainly Wikipedia is not restricted to any state. --65.116.31.25413:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concern is copyright. James C. Bolton is listed as being from pp. 85-86 of A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography, Vol. 1 (1988) and James W. Bolton is listed as being from pg. 87 of A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography, Vol. 1 (1988). Both Wikipedia articles seem to have a structure and flow that you would expect to find in A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography. The article is not footnoted, but includes a mass of text and references at the bottom that is not directly connected to any of the text in the article. I do not have access to A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography so I cannot compare Wikipedia's articles against their entry in A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography. -- Jreferee17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Notability states that it is is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" so I am unsure of the relevance of these positional/geographic fame/importance arguments to whether the article should be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The article inclusion question seems to be is there enough coverage to permit Wikipedia to republish the information in a reliable and attributable way? -- Jreferee17:47, 24 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.
First, I'm not sure how 25 years is remarkable. Second, being "state district judge" in Texas is the equivalent of being one of several county judges elsewhere (there are 437 state district judges today). Third, it's in Laredo, not (say) Houston. --Dhartung | Talk06:41, 13 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, WjBscribe00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I actually wonder if there is any notability to be found in his LULAC presidency, since that is certainly a notable organization. I don't have the time to really look into that right now, so I thought I'd mention it in case someone cares to beat me to the punch. Mwelch02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see 4 assertions of notability, his time on the bench, his advocacy of civil rights/hispanic issues, his presidency of LULAC, and the reference to a published article on him. I think that between all these he meets the notability threshold. -- Monty84503:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep as far as notability goes. , but much or all of the article is admitted copyvio, see the article talk page. The ed. justifies it as saying he gave credit, which he seems to have confused with getting GFDL permission. DGG04:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Laredo Morning Times article and our article seems sufficiently reworded to be non-copyvio. —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 07:29Z
Keep but needs a complete rewrite; as it stands it does seem a pretty clear copyvio (the article doesn't seem to have been rewritten at all, just to have had some sentences deleted) - iridescenti(talk to me!)12:34, 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 page reads as an advert and has no references that mark the company as more notable than any other of the advertising/marketing companies that periodically have pages created and deleted CIreland16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is written like an advertisement (surprise!...). However, it's an international company, so it has a claim to notability. YechielMan16:01, 13 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, WjBscribe00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company has a decent marketshare and has been in business for a number of years. Article needs to be rewritten, as noted above. --76.202.59.11603:38, 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.
Prod removed twice, really a procedural nomination for deletion, although I'm struggling to find notability for the band, despite the article being in reasonable condition. The Rambling Man19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article, and have only removed the "prod" once, and that only after adding a "Notability" section. They might not be considered notable by the standards of Top 40 pop music, but in the much smaller world of acoustic blues music, they are reasonably well known. I'll see the band in concert on April 26th, and I can get a lot more media references from them including the name of the television program they provided music for. K8 fan
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mildly locally-successful band on a home label and one NPR appearance does not establish notability in my book. MySpace has plenty of room to list all the bands of the world... - BierHerr01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have documentation of shows in Italy and Switzerland. If all their shows were only in the Indianapolis area, they've be a local band. But they play all over the United States. K8 fan04:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My yodeling friend Shirley has yodeled professionally in Germany and the U.S., but I still don't think she is worthy of a Wikipedia article. (I'm not being sarcastic... I really do have a yodelling friend named Shirley! :) ) Regards, BierHerr21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They do? The only criteria they kinda meet is #10 - Rotation on a major music station... but they were played on Satellite radio, which is known for playing obscure artists because they have so many stations to fill... - BierHerr13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I live an hour north of Indy, and I've never heard of these guys. Even if they are local, they aren't very well known. --CyrusAndiron12:51, 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.
I fail to see how a page from the CS club from a reputable, first-world university can be questionable with respect to computer terminology. Dbelange01:54, 18 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, WjBscribe00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like one professor's cute nickname for something. The only Google hits I see are for a software company called HOBOware, with no relation to the term. - BierHerr02:00, 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.
Comment consider also nominating Noah Cicero as this author has a few books, no awards, and a only a single source. It appears to be related to Snowbooks's creators efforts at self-promotion. That, and he's an editor of the 'zine that interviewed him, so we can scratch that link as a reliable source. Rklawton15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite all its achievements, it's a small publisher where not much can be said about it from a truly neutral and dispassionate point of view. No opinion on Rklawton's other recommendation: I glanced at the article, and it's borderline. YechielMan03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What documentation do you see that the rest of us don't? Small can indeed be notable. We'd just like some actual proof of that, please.Keep per DGG; those look like spiffy sources to me. RGTraynor 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two good links, one for the republication, and one for the award. I found them on Google. I also removed the existing inoperative link for the republication. DGG02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the essay you cited, "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." In other words, it's better to avoid "the belittling redirect tag WP:ILIKEIT" if there is another way of expressing your point. -Fagles 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment No offense taken. However, I meant their list sounded "interesting" because of the Milne book & stuff on their site. I'm not married to the article, though. Rhinoracer11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability is extremely marginal with only 2 refs. And the article was created by a User called "snowbooks" which violates the strong convention that you don't begin articles about yourself. NBeale05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep NPOV issues can be dealt with, but this seems to have sufficient verifiable notability to seemingly merit an article. Weak keep only because the sourcing is still anemic. — Scientizzle22:59, 24 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.
Keep, but certainly re-write. It absolutely pains me to given an endorsement — even a qualified one — to an article that is so obviously a vanity puff piece right now. But the fact of the matter is that Al Ries is legitmately notable in the marketing world. Can we get someone to re-write this thing free off WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues? Mwelch02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The florid, spammy style of this article demands a complete rewrite, hopefully by someone with at least a pretence of NPOV. The external links need to be removed, all spam. Most Some of the internal links go to pages that have similar self-promotional intent. If this person is worthy of an article, someone will write an appropriate one. This ain't it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC). Sorry/added sig --killing sparrows06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (sighs) I'm with Mwelch. This article, as written, frankly sucks. But even the most casual of research -- which we really ought to be doing before chiming in on AfD debates -- demonstrates that this guy is pretty notable. The reprint edition of his lead book has an Amazon sales rank of 21,000, which is pretty damn good, and the lead reviews on it are from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Booklist. A directed Google search turns up over 144,000 hits, and a casual examination of the lead few dozen sure aren't from blogs. Obviously the article needs serious work and sourcing, but that isn't the province of AfD. Ravenswing 14:20, 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.
Article is a hodgepodge of OR about connections between Mormonism and space. Title refers to no heretofore existing topic. Probably violates WP:MADEUP. All useful content is covered elsewhere with less OR and POV. Cool HandLuke01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content tips over from actually neutral, as these are not unlike some arguments those who would engage against the members of the LDS church would use. Maybe the article could be merged into the appropriate article, but I'm not betting on it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted the edit history, and that it was created on 01Apr, but...well, my !vote stands natch, but more importantly, my reasoning stands. Strictly NPOV issues. What's listed is slight modifications of arguments provided by Ex-Mormons For Jesus. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kolob, merging any adequately referenced data. Yes, there is discussion of extraterrestrial planets and life on other worlds in some interpretations of Mormon doctrine. I have no great confidence that this is a hoax per se, but it is likely the interpretation of a small minority of Latter-day Saints. The page seems to contain references about these interpretations from obscure and hard to find sources. Given the other stuff that is in fact in Mormon teaching, I am inclined to assume good faith. The title does seem to be designed as a deliberate parallel to the article about Space opera in Scientology scripture. - Smerdis of Tlön14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There certainly are some connections, and I agree that this may have been made in good faith, but it's at minimum original research. I think the first comment is right that the article was inspired by the similarly-titled article about Scientology. No one seems to have ever applied the term "space opera" to describe the few extraterrestrial tidbits of Mormonism. It's OR on an original concept. Cool HandLuke15:50, 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.
Delete This is nothing more than a memorial. While I feel sorry for their families, WP is not a memorial for them. TJ Spyke01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge Although Wikipedia is not a memorial, the victims are notable as victims of one of the deadliest school shootings. Otherwise, merge into the main article. --theblueflamingoSquawk02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting is notable, the individual victims are not. I'm not sure there is anything to merge, the article is just a list of the victims and that already exists in the article on the massacre. TJ Spyke02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the main article; it's not really enough content to have its own separate page, and would work better in context in the main article. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly encourage the closing admin to read this discussion at WT:NOT because it relates directly to our subject. Per my opinion there, I recommend a keep, and would be almost as satisfied with a merge - as long as the content is kept in some form. YechielMan03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Re-edit completely (Don't delete)Well, I do understand how Wikipedia is NOT a memorial for families of victims, and how it does not advocate emotionally-related articles, this particular article gives a somewhat valid first-hand view of the victims and links to all of their sites and real memorials. This page just needs to be re-edited, and it will be a viable, non-objective page. I mean, deleting it will just remove all of the sources for the memorials. Given recent events, this page will probably be looked at alot more closely. Re-edit, then merge or keep (don't just delete).Kookface06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The list by itself holds little encyclopedic value. No additional information on each of the individual victims can be added to it that requires keeping it separatly, as their only source of notability comes from the events themselves. Echoing the sentiments of grief that have already been expressed above, keeping this list simply is erecting a shrine to those who perished - a most commendable goal, but definitely not an encyclopedic one. - Phaedriel 07:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC
I think the reductio ad absurdum argument is flawed. It's partly a question of numbers. I think we can agree that for an incident involving three people, such as the recent hiking accident on Mount Hood, the names should be listed. It's equally clear that for an incident involving 3,000 deaths, such as Sept. 11, a list would become unwieldy. So where's the middle ground? I think that's what we're discussing. YechielMan18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge a basic victim list into the article. We do not usually include victim lists for bombings and plane crashes, but unlike those events in a shooting spree the events transpire over a time period and the victims may have interacted to affect the sequence of events, so they may have a part in the narrative, like characters in a play. Edison14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Deleting this article doesn't somehow obliterate the memorial websites for all of these victims; it just means that Wikipedia isn't a link repository for them. As it shouldn't be. RGTraynor 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dr bab said it best. Keeping this article sets a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The thing may be sad for some people, I suppose, but still, listing victims of mass deaths is weird, somewhat creepy, and unnecessary. If any of the individual victims got both very significant media attention and asserted notability beyond getting shot, why not make them the subject of their own article? Voretus15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being one of the victims of a tragedy, regardless of the notoriety of said tragedy, does not confer notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a memorial, and having a page listing otherwise non-notable victims is unencyclopedic. Arkyan • (talk)16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect This information is already available in the Columbine High School massacre article. There are people who might search for a list like this, however, so it should redirect to the proper section of the existing Columbine article. J0lt C0la16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please think before opining "merge". The parent article is already huge and it doesn't need an extra infusion of content. The whole idea behind Wikipedia not being a memorial is that it isn't somewhere for you to post your dear departed loved one's obituary. But these people were covered in national news - this is not a vanity article about some guy's dear departed mother. --BigDT17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - a list of the names of the dead is not notable and not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists nor a memorial. If someone isn't important enough to get mentioned in the article or have their own article, then there's no reason to include them in a list, and there's no reason for a list if they're already mentioned inline. It just isn't important. Moreover, its not like the hiroshima bombing or 9/11 or similar have lists of dead people on them, and they were far more notable events. Thus, it is completely inappropriate. Titanium Dragon19:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep, because of the notoriety and impact of this historic and infamous event, almost assuredly people reading Wikipedia will want to read this information. We must not fall victim to the deletionist agenda. --172.166.196.25319:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Phaedriel, who has it pretty well bang-on. The information is available in the main article, so no deletionism is going on here. Tony Fox(arf!)20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was created to prevent the Columbine article from getting too long. No valid reason to delete and no reason to merge back in. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA!22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the general idea. Its pretty evident from their distribution that they are random and meaningless, and are very biased towards people in the US. Its not like the Haditha killings has a victims page. Indeed, there isn't a list of the names of the people killed in that, because it isn't encyclopedic! Frankly, these lists of victims ARE memorial pages, and thus inappropriate, because they weren't meaningful and they aren't remembered. Titanium Dragon23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I would suggest a list of victims (which I believe to be a vital part of an encylopaedic article like this) be merged into the main article for the incident. However, the whole reason this article is here is that the main article is too long. This page does not read like a memorial, includes all those involved including the murderers (which obviously would not be the case on a memorial), ad deliberately avoids language which might construe the page as a memorial to the massacre. It is simply a page presenting information pertinant to another page which is now simply too long.--Jackyd10123:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you object to a specific aspect of this list, then improve it through editing. The list of victims in this case is a valuable addition to the parent article; indeed, we wouldn't HAVE a parent article if these people hadn't been killed in the first place. Having an article on the killings without the people who were killed would be like having an article on an election without the names of the candidates, or an article on the Olympics without the medal winners. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Great, so merge the names into the main article. Oh, wait. They already are in there, each and every one. How many you have actually read the Columbine article? The deaths of every victim are described in narrative detail, and there is a table as well. This article up for AfD is completely redundant. RGTraynor 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should be in the main article, for reasons of length. If they're a standalone with a blurb in the main article, people can see them if they want, and not see them if they don't. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I look at it again, I see that it's not anything like you'd described. I assumed that it must've been changed since the last time I read it, but I guess not. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP isn't a memorial. Death sucks, but just because you died doesn't make you notable. Just because you die during a notable event doesn't make you notable, either -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the following reasons:
The names of the dead and injured in the Columbine High School massacre are historically pertinent as part of the description of that significant historical event.
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 victims en groupe are notable for having been the victims of the one of the biggest school shootings in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. I do not argue that their level of notability warrants each and every one of them getting a separate article, but yes, they are "notable" enough as a group for their names to be known.
The current AfD discussion seems to be part of an ideological campaign against any such lists of victims of heinous crimes, apparently begun with the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page and accompanying AfD discussion, by people who seem unable to distinguish between a memorialization and pertinent detail about a historically important event. I disagree with this ideological campaign and the faulty reasoning behind it.
Many proponents of deletion also seem to be confused about different levels of "notability." They apparently believe that if a given person/place/thing/event/idea isn't notable enough to warrant a page all on its own, then it isn't deserving of mention at all, even if it's a pertinent detail in describing another person/place/thing/event/idea. By this faulty reasoning, no person/place/thing/event/idea on Wikipedia would be deserving of an article, since every article is made up of numerous "nonnotable" details that only become notable when joined with others to create a context. But it is context that makes something/someone notable or not, and these people, the victims of Harris and Klebold, are part of the context of what makes the Columbine shootings notable. As Hit bull, win steak wrote, "we wouldn't HAVE a parent article if these people hadn't been killed in the first place." I'm sure we would all be much happier if the main article didn't even exist, but the reason it does is because these people and their deaths and injuries were notable not only to their families and friends and the community of Littleton, Colorado, but also to the nation and to the world. If they weren't, then perhaps you should consider a speedy delete on the main article instead.
I would vote Merge were in not for the fact that the main Columbine High School massacre article is already (at this writing) 70 kb in length, and when opened to edit displays the message "It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." Per WP:SIZE, an article over 60 kb "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" and one over 100 kb "Almost certainly should be divided up." Which is of course why this article was split out of the main one to being with. I'm not sure how much merging this article into the main article would affect the size, but it's already over the recommended limit for "probably should." Therefore I vote for Keep rather than Merge. --Yksin05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (per a similar comment I made in the AfD/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre discussion). Per WP:NOTE, "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" (emphases added). So this continual referencing of WP:NOTE is inappropriate as an argument for the deletion of this article because the individuals named here are not individually notable -- because the topic of this article is all the victims of the Columbine 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. --Yksin06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article was created on June 10, 2005 and is just a list of those who were killed, it's a list not a memorial, if on the other hand people were writing about how much they going to miss them or how they knew them and enjoyed the same music etc. I would agree, this on the other hand was a major news story and part of US History, further more I see the recent nom of this article for deletion as Violation of WP:POINT brought about by the nom of the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk06:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Too bulky to be merged into the main page, and their names is important information and very relavent to the massacre Epson29114:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of encylopedic information. It would be a detriment to the quality of the main article to have it jammed in there, but would also be an oversight of this encylopedia to not have this information. This is not a memorial, however a list, one of many on wikipedia used to cover such information. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete suggestion for this article. There is room for a list of victims in the original article. But we do need to remember that WP is NOT a memorial. There is no additional information in this list that would make it appear to be anything other than a memorial. Aquatics22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm failing to see how a list is the same thing as a memorial. It's not like this is friends or family writing a memorial page to the victims. I don't think memorial applies in this case. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA!23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Nope, it used to be part of the massacre article, and then people thought the article was too long, so they divided some sections out into sub-articles, this being one of them. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This not a violation of WP:MEMORIAL because it's not a memorial, it's a listing a victims, people seem to be confused as what constitutes a memorial, if a perpetrator of a crime becomes so news worthy as to become encyclopedic rather it be Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, or Charles Manson, common sense will tell you that these people regardless of how horrible they are that they are notable in history, on the other hand people seem to have a harder time understanding of the notability of a crime victim, JonBenét Ramsey wasn't notable before her death and neither was Elizabeth Smart before her kidnapping, after the fact their cases were covered worldwide as to reach notability and so were true with the Columbine victims, reporting them as such isn't the same a reporting another young boy or girl who is kidnapped or murdered, the listing of a famous victim is no more of a memorial as the listing of a famous killer. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk04:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a paradox, the more numerous victims in an event the less known they are individually, the listing of six million Jews for example can not be done, and conversely the listing of the seven people of the space shuttle challenger can. As far as the USS Arizona Memorial, if at the time wikipedia had existed and people who were editors made their own memorial to the people who died on the USS Arizona, this would had been a violation, if editors at the time instead had just reported in an article about a memorial of the USS Arizona then it would not be a violation. Thus reporting on the memorial and making a memorial is two different things, listing the names of the victims and making a memorial to them are also two different things.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk05:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteWeak Keep While it is the norm, there could easily be exceptions to the rule. Columbine was and still is a historic event, and perhaps the rule/norm could be bent to allow this list to be refined and kept. Jmlk1702:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list of victims != memorial... individual pages for victims == memorial... dont confuse the two. and delete the images off the page already (thats not acceptable fair use). ALKIVAR™☢04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge the names into the main article, but delete this article. It's a memorial, and isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Malamockq05:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per precedent. I started an article on the Bath School disaster victims. Unanimous consent was to remove and this was done (and Bath was a far worse tragedy).[1] All you need here is name, age, occupation/student status and you have enough for a record. If there's more than that, the person should have their own article or one of the many memorial sites can more than provide whatever detail a searcher may be looking to obtain. Jtmichcock17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - and so there should also be a similar article for the Virginia Tech massacre and all other such incidents. Why would this not be considered notable enough to keep? --DevelopedMadness19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep. This is clearly an improper use of the claim of WP:MEMORIAL, which states: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.. This is not a matter of the sobbing friends and family of a departed loved one, posting the kid's myspace page on the Wikipedia. The tone of the Memorials guideline is to avoid making special pages for otherwise non-notable individuals just because they died prematurely or otherwise. Groups of people involved in a massacre are different. The Columbine massacre, like the Virginia Tech massacre and 9-11, was a National Tragedy, as students, families, and the general national population was effected in some way. While it is true that the dear students themselves, rest in peace, were not particularly notable before the event, the list of them becomes notable because of the global interest in the event. That said - I would strongly argue against creating special pages for each of the students themselves, unless there were other notability factors, like perhaps documented heroic acts performed before death, that sort of thing, and then it would have to be very well documented, not urban legend material. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 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.
Weak keep as per Ergot's notes; 'weak' because I'd like to see some media references and other sources to go with the notable label and album list, though. Tony Fox(arf!)20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Goggle produces 95,200 hits for Terrorfakt ranging from reviews, t-shirt sales, sales venues, etc. Metropolis is indeed the leading industrial label and represents almost 130 artists and distributes for about 80 labels (from their website: http://www.metropolis-records.com/artists/ . Artists include Apoptygma Berzerk, Assemblage 23, Combichrist, Covenant, Front Line Assembly, KMFDM, Mindless Self Indulgence, Velvet Acid Christ, VNV Nation, Wumpscut) . Surely the entry can and perhaps should be expanded but even more surely it should be kept. It contains useful information for those like me who are researching the band (I own no disks of theirs yet). And the entry compares well with a number of other similar entries for bands. Disparaging remarks about the band or Metropolis are not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zen Mercury (talk • contribs)
Keep band is on a well-known, notable label (one of the oldest and largest in industrial music, if not the oldest and largest); has at least three albums out when WP:BAND only requires two. National Airport23:14, 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.
Hi. I created this article some year back with pretty much all of the content. The information is based on the video titled MR WIGGLES SESSIONS #2 FLOATING and GLIDING available at http://www.mrwiggles.biz/wiggles_videos.htm. I chose not to cite the video as a source as I dislike citing books and videos that other people don't have access to, and was planning to find more web-based resources to cite and expand the article with, but haven't had time.
What did you have in mind more specifically? Do you want the unsourced material deleted or cited, or do you want the article merged with another article? If you don't think the subject in question deserves an article of its own then this is a bigger discussion involving other more specific dance-related articles such as those listed at Popping (dance) and List of breakdance moves. - Wintran(talk)01:53, 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a handful of Google hits. Article doesn't really tell you anything you can't figure out from the term itself. - BierHerr02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "handful of Google hits"? "+gliding +popping +dance" gives 82,500 hits, and that's a pretty specific search. That the article is currently short is not a valid argument for deletion. I don't mind renaming or merging it with popping at all, my point is that I'd like a bigger discussion involving the rest of the more specific dance related articles on Wikipedia, many of them less notable than this one, otherwise the deletion of this article solves nothing. - Wintran(talk)14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant search is for the phrase "Floating, gliding and sliding" - and there are barely any mentions outside this article and one amateur youtube video. Again, the concepts in the article may be independently noteworthy, but not in this arbitrary triad. Aaronbrick14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, the current name of the article is indeed problematic as it groups three terms together. The problem is that many street dancers of today simply refer to the whole footwork concept of moving around weightlessly as either floating, gliding or sliding (especially the latter two), making the terms synonymous. The only clear definition of what these terms mean comes from authorities such as Mr. Wiggles, and he distinguishes them from each other while still considering them closely related (e.g. gliding being based on floating). Unfortunately, he doesn't coin an umbrella term. I propose two solutions: 1) Rename the article to either floating (dance), gliding (dance) or sliding (dance). 2) Split the article into three articles: floating (dance), gliding (dance) and sliding (dance). The third option would be to merge the whole content into the popping (dance), but I still believe this requires a broader discussion on notability involving other similar articles. My vote is currently on renaming the article to gliding (dance), with redirects from the other specific terms. - Wintran(talk)15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NEO. Nice try. Googling the actual phrase minus Wiki mirrors, and you get thirteen hits, which downright is off the radar and into the sand [2]. What deletion of this article "solves" is removing an unsourced neologism from the encyclopedia. RGTraynor 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting also means deleting the article's content, indirectly rendering it as invalid. If the criticism is towards the article's title then alternatives to deletion should be thoroughly discussed before deleting its full content. - Wintran(talk)15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, yes, it does. If the creator or anyone else wants to take any of the concepts presented in the article and write them into any other dance article, that's his or her lookout, and no doubt those knowledgeable in such articles have a better chance to gauge the notability of the concepts themselves. RGTraynor 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but still believe this is an important point to keep in mind during AfD:s, especially for administrators. After deletion the content of the article is unreachable to the general public and cannot be used for other articles. - Wintran(talk)16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see what potential there is for the article beyond saying "Floating is where you dance like you are floating. Sliding is where you dance like you are sliding" and so on... - BierHerr19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The potential lies in more in-depth descriptions of the concept of gliding (as an umbrella term), the many variations, origins, notable practitioners, and descriptions of more specific moves (circleglide, sideglide, forwardslide, backslide/moonwalk etc). The moonwalk has its own article but is just one move within this style. - Wintran(talk)12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or split as proposed in above discussions. Arguments for deletion are based on the current article title and its grouping of terms and does not render the content non-notable or the individual terms neologistic. - Wintran(talk)16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the content not notable. I still say Delete. At best, merge it into one sentence in another dance article, but in no way do I see this worthy of it's own wiki article. - BierHerr19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you find it not notable? Because it's too specific for a dance article and not known enough to the general public? Then what do you feel about for example waving (dance), strobing (dance), swipe (breakdance move) and swingout? These are quite specific dance-related articles as well and their notability could definitly be challenged. If the subject in question is not notable enough to warrant its own article then we also need to do something about those. I'm very interested in finding a broader policy on this, having worked a lot on street dance-related articles. - Wintran(talk)12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why I find this specific article notable: Popping is an internationally practiced street dance style, appearing in music videos and international street dance festivals such as Juste Debout. The concept of floating, gliding and sliding (generally known as just gliding or sliding) is one of the most common techniques and style used within popping. There are much lesser known substyles to popping, such as animation, that I don't believe are notable enough for their own article. I would also not consider creating articles for specific moves such as the circleglide or the forwardslide. The backslide (or moonwalk) is an exception considering its media exposure through Michael Jackson. - Wintran(talk)12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: If this article is deleted without further discussion I will attempt to create gliding (dance) with most of this article's content. I will also, in either case, attempt to start a discussion at how Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance on how to deal with lesser dance-related articles, hoping to reach a more global consensus there. - Wintran(talk)12:48, 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.
This is an article I created myself last summer, although I do not actually want the article deleted as such, so do not attempt to speedily delete the article. I would, however, like to generate discussion about whether it is a valid topic for inclusion. Before commenting to keep, delete or something else, read the article itself, its talk page, and try the Google test. The term returns quite a few Google hits independent of Wikipedia, although it's difficult to say how many of these would be reliable sources - most are peronal websites. Before defaulting to delete, read the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systematic bias - sugarelly is a historical invention, and will doubtless show up less in Google than recent trends. I think this article would fit in fine to merge with an article on early twentieth century children's culture in Scotland or something less specific. Also, it was notable as the primary subject of an Oor Wullie cartoon from the 1940s.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h13:31, 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 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.
Delete I moved the info over to the main article on Medium, just in case the info was important but just not worthy of it's own article. Postcard Cathy22:32, 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.
Delete Non-notable label with non-notable bands. No real information presented in the article beyond a listing of band names. - BierHerr02:08, 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 article is about a neologism and thus should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NEO. The article Dhimmitude is definitely a neologism, and admits to being so when it states in the article "The word dhimmitude is a neologism, imported from the French language, and derived from the Arabic language word dhimmi." Furthermore, this dhimmitude may be a protologisms: the article states "The term is said to have been invented in 1982". Also the article does not cite any reliable sources that are about the term. This is essential to keeping the article. WP:NEO says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." No such source is cited in the article. Moreover, the main purpose of this article seems to be tracking the emergence of the term, and not much more in depth than that. WP:NEO states "The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" I can elaborate on this further. N.B. It may be able to merge this article into Dhimmi. Agha Nader02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Dhimmi. It looks like there are minimal [WP:RS]] regarding this term, but I'd be happier discussing the concept more than the term itself - therefore a separate article is probably not appropriate. YechielMan03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This concept is in common usage in discussions of Islamic influence in the world at the moment. There are 683,000 google hits for it. The article can certainly be improved and sourced better but articles shouldn't be deleted when they can be improved. Nick mallory05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination is misguided; several reliable sources are provided in the article that discuss the term itself. Plus this certainly does not belong in Dhimmi, which is about the historical phenomenon specifically. It would be like having a section in Jesus about the term Jesus Freak. - Merzbow07:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over 600,000 google hits and all those references in the article must be able to define this term properly. If not, Merge --Rayis10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to what the article and the nom say, this is probably not an English neologism but an established (though relatively new) French word for which there is no English equivalent - so WP:NEO does not apply. It is easy to find on Google refs to establish notability - National Review, Washington Times etc. Clearly a right-wing buzz-word, but mostly treated as a French word. There are two books by Bat Ye'or (English translations of French) that use the word in the title. Both of these are mentioned in the article, directly contrary to what the nominator says about lack of RS. Dhimmi is not the same at all.Johnbod10:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that the term is an established French word? If you right, then this article should be deleted, and a new article created in French Wikipedia. Which source is about the term?--Agha Nader15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work like that; there are dozens if not hundreds of articles titled with French, Arabic or other terms for which there is no exact English equivalent - try Category:Islam! The fact that the word is included in the title of a book (the books your nom chose not to mention) indicates pretty clearly the books are about the concept; you might also look at the 193 google book references here [3]. The general ghits (99,700 in French) also establish it is a French word, often used in English. I don't have online OED - that would be interesting. Johnbod16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in the google hits. It is irrelevant since I have never questioned its notability. What is relevant is WP:NEO. This term is definitely a neologism--for Gods sake "The term is said to have been invented in 1982". Which source is about the term?--Agha Nader21:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that has dhmimmitude as its topic is not reliable. That source is Jihad Watch [4], which is a severe POV/hate site. Using Jihad Watch would be like using white-history.com or David Duke's page to cover Judaism. Neither of these are reliable source. WP:NEO says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." This article does not have a "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". --Agha Nader02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is hopeless quibbling. That is not the only source. There are 2 books in the article (more on Google Books - link above) with it in the title, others with it in chapter titles, plus quotes etc. That is "about". In any case WP:NEO is not in fact relevant once you regard it as a French term. Johnbod03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that it is not a neologism? Have you even proved that it is not a neologism in French--which by the way is an irrelevant argument you brought up. If it is not a neologism in French then you can translate some of this material and put it in French Wikipedia. Just because a term may not be a neologism in another language does not mean it is not a neologism in English. The other books cited in the article merely use the term and define it, the sources are not "about" the term. --Agha Nader03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agha, you are misinterpreting the policy - it is not saying that the ENTIRE book or paper has to be about the term, which would clearly be a ridiculous requirement. - Merzbow03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me, which reliable source is "about" the term? As you know, it must be "about" the term to keep this article. WP:NEO says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The reliable sources in the article only define it in passing. It may seem ridiculous to you but this is an encyclopedia, and the content must be encyclopedic. --Agha Nader03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now the standard is no longer about, but about and not defined in passing? Please get that added to WP:NEO first and then re-nominate for deletion. - Merzbow16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended, and in my view corrected, the lead sentence of the article, to say it is a French term rather than a neologism. If first used (in French) in 1982, it is the same age as prion & probably older than Thatcherism. It was first used in English - but I think as a French word - in 1985. Johnbod03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User Johnbod has tried to suppress dhimmitude's noelogism status. Please see [5]. His edit was in violation of WP:ATT and WP:OR. It also seems to be a bad faith edit since the term is definitely a neologism. After all, "The term is said to have been invented in 1982". --Agha Nader04:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained more than once above that I think the article is incorrect to call the term a neologism in English. I was therefore Bold & changed it; having held off previously as this nomination was in progress. You seem to think an origin in 1982 makes it a certain neologism; as I've said above prion and Thatcherism are a similar age, and no one could now call them neologisms. WP:NEO does not address the issue of foreign terms used in English, which I think it should. I will raise that after this debate. Johnbod10:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We must follow guidelines and policy. Guidelines have been formed through consesnus. They are also based on past precedent. Your vote seems to be an example of "I LIKE IT". Just because the article is well written does not mean it should be included and guidelines should be disregarded. As of now WP:NEO does not allow for such articles, and we must follow that.--Agha Nader15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect per nom. Article on Dhimmi already exists and an article like this is simply being used to exaggerate such a concept and give it undue weight, which is wrong and POV. WP is increasingly being used to push a virulently anti-Islamic POV (especially in continuing to lump the extremists and fanatics with the mainstream adherents) and editors should strive to reverse this terrible situation. Wikipedia is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia. How many articles do we have here which we would never find in Britannica? Khorshid09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We're not a dictionary, but we generally keep articles on slogans, sayings etc. which cite sufficient reliable, especially scholarly sources to support encyclopedic content. Sandstein12:12, 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 speedy keep. Non-admin closure. A friendly note to the nominator: you should read the article more carefully before advocating for its deletion. Generally high school basketaball coaches are not notable, but he is a clear exception. Cheers. :) YechielMan03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Complete joke - Wootten is the winningest coach in high school basketball history, and has been put in the Basketball Hall of Fame for his achievements. I have no clue how it can be argued that he's a "non-notable person." --badlydrawnjefftalk02:34, 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.
Throughout much discussion, over 3 months later, the article still contains 0 references. Even the proponents of keeping this article cannot agree on the name of the object of which is intended to be described. Alan.ca02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable. The writing needs editing, but it would seem obvious that it is sourceable. I think the naming problem is just about the form of the word but not the word itself or the concept. DGG04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources have been added since the first delete nomination and merge some time back, the page may even merit protection against recreation; even if the consensus is to keep, it should be radically cut to describe the blade and note the lack of verifiable sources - get rid of all the original research/opinion/ideas text. -- Medains11:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I was going to !vote Delete, on the grounds that the most-widely accepted name for this weapon in the English language was "ninjato," but gosh, I tried to pull up Ninjato and found that the nom had redirected it to Ninjaken. Then I find that the nom had redirected other permutations to Ninjaken. Going through the edit history, I find that nom has filed AfDs on various permutations and has set up redirect pages whenever possible, with some edit wars in the meantime. I don't quite claim this is a bad faith nomination, but it's looking to me that nom is trying to wipe all references whatsoever to this weapon off of Wikipedia, which has huge history all out there (29,000 Google hits to ninjato, 144,000 hits to ninja-to, and, interestingly enough, only 1000 hits for ninjaken), and I would like to know what version of the article nom does recommend keeping. RGTraynor 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll have more when I get home; I've several published sources for which I can't recall publication info off the top of my head, and I'd prefer to give page refs. RGTraynor 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although some in-text citations of the referenced material would be nice. The sourcing concern of the nominator should not now be an issue, and having alternate names for an object is not a reason for removing data on said object. ◄Zahakiel►21:48, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Agreed that this isn't a speedy candidate, but also agreed that Wikipedia is not a recipe book, and that there appears to be no evidence that this is an actual cocktail in any case. JavaTenor14:16, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I feel this to be an unremarkable group of people. It is essentially a vanity article, as evidenced by the original author's account name of SHOOD. To quote the article, "S-HOOD also known as the Sisterhood is a group of girls who are best friends." Article about some girls who are friends. The contents of the article belongs on a social networking website, not wikipedia. The only source ever added to the article was this, which was added after the CSD and prod were removed, is to a free website with a copy of the article's text. Kevin_b_er03:58, 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.
Non-notable outside of the Howard Stern Show. The article lacks any outside reliable sources proving encyclopedic merit. The entire article is fancruft from within the Howard Stern Show universe with no attribution for any of it. —OcatecirTalk04:08, 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.
Review for possible copyvio (I only have a minute so I can't do this myself at the moment), then either Strong keep or Rewrite to remove copyvio portions if needed. This organization is long established as the authority on helmet safety standards. Its certification is (or was) required in the NASCAR rulebook and, if I'm not mistaken (again searches will have to wait until later), in the rulebooks of other automobile-racing and motorcycle-racing sanctioning bodies. Article needs more sourcing but topic is notable (definitely passing WP:ORG) and the included information appears accurate. Barno17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Barno, and on that grounds, for now, Keep. Having the Snell logo on every bike helmet sold in the US gives some sort of import, if you ask me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question To what extent is the extensive detail in the lists of test appropriate for this article--should it moved to an article on racing helmets?DGG02:09, 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.
Keep. I don't understand the nominator's rationale at all -- this doesn't read like an ad, let alone a blatant one. It could use some better sources, but Shanklin's authorship of at least one hit -- "Chanson D'Amour" -- is easy enough to verify, so keep. —Celithemis08:00, 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 Speedy keep, subject clears meets the criterias of WP:PROF, and was notable before the recent tragic event at Virginia. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! Delete, because I can't stand the idea that Wikipedia might be helpful to a reader seeking information on Prof. What's-his-face. Make 'em go somewhere else to learn; Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be informative. (edit conflict) Uggh04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this individual is unquestionably notable and should have had an article even before the tragedy. Take a look at his CV - http://www.esm.vt.edu/~llibresc/RESUME%20L.%20Librescu.pdf. He has published countless books and papers. More importantly, he was frequently cited in others' published works. He was notable before the shootings and is moreso now. --BigDT04:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Meets Notable Criteria, no grouds for deletion... 76.109.163.61
Keep - I agree with the nominator and think that most biography articvles for victims should probably not be included, however I also agree with BigDT, he is notable for inclusion based on his list of published works alone. Dalf | Talk04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I agree with BigDT; this is not a memorial of a departed friend/relative, as was indicated on the "What Wikipedia is not" page. This information is relevant to the Virginia Tech shootings, and I think that it should be kept. Thanks BlueStarz04:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Read the article, and then read the related policies (in this case, WP:PROF#Criteria). Saying it should be deleted because it's a memorial is almost borderline as bad faith. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly notable, papers cited over 1000 times and expert in his field. Should have had article before death. Very prolific writer: had 110 chapters in books published and 246 articles published in journals. Also, his death is getting more press since he was deemed a "hero" by many for blocking the door. -Bluedog423Talk04:43, 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.
Delete. "He is an alcoholic who currently lives in a trailer in Berne, New York." Yup that puts him right up there in encyclopedia-article territory with Newton and Columbus and Picasso. Sheesh. Herostratus13:13, 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.
Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. —OcatecirTalk04:32, 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.
Delete Agreed. Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Also the article serves as advertising for the webiste mentioned in the article and having the same name as the article with .com after it. Kevin_b_er04:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Advertisement, NOT notable enough to be mentioned separately, maybe merged with the article on the original software, plus copyright violation of this page,as NO credit given to original author. Mayank Abhishek06:12, 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.
Redundant disambiguation page that doesn't point to a single article. I tagged this for a speedy as G6, but it was removed by someone claiming this was a normal disambiguation page. I've seen thousands of disambig pages, I've never seen one like this, not one that didn't get speedied anyway. I have no idea what someone's motivation would be to make a disambiguation page when there are no articles to disambiguate. The creator says this is the same as Snow (disambiguation)... except there are over a dozen articles called Snow. Crazysuit04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless disambiguation page. Very odd, looks like the author has searched Google trying to find anything to add to the list, a "A pejorative sobriquet for David Beckham and Victoria Beckham" said as a joke in a TV show once? Oh dear. Saikokira05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:DAB#Disambiguation pages allows the linked word in any entry not to be the word/phrase being disambiguated, "as long as the term in question is actually described on the target article". So we already have three existing articles there which contain the phrase "thick and thin". That makes it worth disambiguating per the guideline. I'd throw out the Beckhams' entry, though. —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 11:39Z
Keep - I can see people searching on any one of these contexts - even the redlinked ones. This is clearly a useful disambig page, and if the disambig page is going to stay up there's no harm in leaving the dicdef there as well. - iridescenti(talk to me!)12:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I was the one who removed the speedy tag. Bear in mind though that it had been tagged for 12 hours and no admin had been prepared to touch it. As far as I can see this is a potentially useful page and the question is - what good does deleting it do? Bridgeplayer20:05, 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.
Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not been the "subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Only sources are from show rundowns and other sources within the Howard Stern universe. —OcatecirTalk04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I don't find much if any secondary sources regarding Mr. Murray; most every reference to him is, as mentioned by the nominator, within the Stern sphere of influence - on the show's site, within fan blogs, etc. That suggests to me a failure of WP:BIO. But being a regular contributor to a show like Stern's might push the notability just over the line. I can't see any external sources in the article at present, so I'm going to suggest weak delete and see if anyone turns up new sources prior to the AFD closing. Tony Fox(arf!)20:17, 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.
This is not actually from Egyptian mythology, as the article claims; it's a unit from a strategy video game, and is not notable by itself. Delete. Sean Curtin04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone may be confused. Horus is known as The Avenger, and is a falcon-headed god. No mention anywhere I saw of having servants named avengers. Delete. Tony Fox(arf!)20:19, 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.
Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not been the "subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Only sources are from show rundowns and other sources within the Howard Stern universe. —OcatecirTalk04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete he's done nothing of note besides being a frequent on air personality on The Howard Stern Show. I don't think that makes him notable yet. LilDice23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not delete If he's heard by 6 million people once a week, wouldnt he be notable? Who decides who/what is notable? Whose sphere of influence takes precident? DaHoolio16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete They've got separate pages for every Pokemon and trivial cartoon character but JD , a member of the Stern Show cast can't have his own page? He's the topic of conversation on the show at least once or twice per week. Don't worry the internet isn't running out of space lol.
What's the official policy on this? I mean he is a frequent personality on a show heard by lots of people, however I think it's different than a fictional character, remember this is a biography. I really don't know. Changing my vote to not sure.LilDice12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is notable. He appears on the nationally received and internationally known Howard Stern Show regularly. Where the information comes from is the problem. The information is attributed but the source is definitely not independent of the subject. J.D. must get some other press before a wiki article, I'm afraid. El hombrede haha23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'll add to what others have countered in this ridiculous attempt to diminish the scope and reach of the Howard Stern Show, and mention that among other things the subject was a celebrity presenter at the 2007 AVN awards, have their own theme/entrance music, and are by far the most famous alumni of Full Sail Real World Education, a respected and expensive media-centric school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen's black friend (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I've checked the first 5 pages of Google hits for "Shanghai woman" + prostitute and all them them are Wikipedia mirrors or apparently taken from this article (ie [7]). Fails WP:ATT and WP:V. Saikokira05:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax and/or attack page. None of Google books hits for "shanghai woman" [8] or "shanghai women" [9] up until 1970 use it in this sense, which lends doubt to the idea that it's an "obsolete English expression". The topic of Shanghai women (i.e. womens' issues in Shanghai, sociological studies of women from Shanghai) might be encyclopedic, but we should get this junk out of the history first. cab11:13, 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.
Original Reseach with no references, simply a page of links to entries. Sets a bad precedent if allowed to continue without at least some WP:V, IMHO. Netkinetic(t/c/@)05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assessment given above. It is a comparison chart that happens to include links to other entries (provided as a convenience for those wishing to know more about the specific characters). References are being added at the present time to further refine the entry and bring it more clearly in-line with Wikipedia's standards. Thanks. Starmiter14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References seem to have been added, if necessary; though perhaps the best place for annotations here would be the characters' articles in chief. This is an indexing/crossreferencing page. - Smerdis of Tlön14:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked into the references to verify they are valid for the content on the page? If not then I revert back to the initial premise for this submission, respectfully. Netkinetic(t/c/@)05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, then, which articles reference the below mentioned Earth-X characters as counterparts? Of those listed, only a handful can be confirmed, and I'm unsure as to the relevance of this as an "indexing/crossreferencing page". Can you provide some further criteria on why this list is justified from actual teritary sources, rather than primary or secondary? Comic book issues are primary sources, and do not fall into the criteria of WP:V nor WP:RS, respectfully.Netkinetic(t/c/@)22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Those references do not all establish these characters as counterparts. None of those Earth-S or Earth-X characters are the same people. For example, Uncle Sam is not Clark Kent, he's not a strange visit from another planet, he does not have the same powers. Not. The. Same. Yeah, the Earth-X characters made their DC debut in Justice League of America #107. Not one word established them as alternate versions of the Earth-1 or Earth-2 people. The same goes for #136 and the Earth-S characters. Too much of this is just stuff some Wikipedia contributor made up based on his/her personal inferences. The material that's not original research is covered in the respective characters' articles and the multiverse article. Doczilla09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(parts reprinted from my talk page for additional info purposes on the debate here - more info will follow):
For Earth-X:
Uncle Sam serves the Superman purpose as the single-most powerful character for that world
Firebrand serves the Batman purpose as the rich playboy who fights crime
Miss America serves the WW purpose as a red, white, & blue-clad heroine (and DC themselves initially used her in WW's place in the JSA after Crisis on Infinite Earths since the Golden Age version of WW was wiped from continuity, so DC saw her as a counterpart)
Quicksilver serves the Flash purpose as a super-speedster
Red Torpedo serves the Aquaman purpose as an undersea-based hero with ties to an underwater civilization (which is, per The All-Star Companion Volume 2, page 95, the under-sea civilization Merrezonia)
Alias the Spider serves the Green Arrow purpose as a heroic archer
Black Condor serves the Hawkman purpose as a flying man with a bird-based name
Dollman serves the Atom purpose (particularly the Earth-One version) as a shorter-than-normal hero
Phantom Lady serves the Black Canary purpose as a fighting female with a suggestive outfit (and later, with a gimmick - 'black-light ray' vs. 'canary cry')
The Jester serves the Vigilante purpose as a law enforcement or court official who takes it upon himself to additionally fight crime in a costumed identity
It should be noted that the Earth-X characters were originally owned and published by Quality Comics, a direct competitor to DC/National Comics, and during the Golden Age when both companies were active, character-copying was not just common but the rule, however, function-copying was tougher to prove in court than direct concept-copying, so that explains why the world-by-world comparisons here (long after the time DC bought the rights to the Quality characters after Quality went out of business) may not seem intuitive at first glance (and if a character is a copy, to any extent, that makes the character a counterpart automatically; and according to Merriam-Webster, counterpart...3b : one having the same function or characteristics as another).
In the case of Earth-S, Captain Marvel was considered such a copy (i.e., counterpart) to Superman, that DC/National sued Fawcett Comics for copyright infringement (initially losing) - the similarities were ultimately shown that both characters were strong, could fly, ultra-durable, had alter-egos employed in the news business, and both had evil bald scientists as their chief enemy (there are also sources that have suggested that Captain Marvel, Jr., with his blue outfit & red cape, is actually Fawcett's slam at Superman to show how Cap, physically bigger than Jr., had much greater sales at the time). And the copying came full circle when DC finally developed Supergirl, clearly a counterpart to Mary Marvel.
To be a counterpart, it does not mean that the heroic identity has to be the same, nor does it mean the secret identity has to be the same. The complaint that Uncle Sam isn't Clark Kent is invalid because (picking just one example), Ray Palmer isn't the secret identity of the Earth-Two Atom (Al Pratt is), they don't have the same powers, and yet they're counterparts. In Infinite Crisis, it's stated that Breach would've been the Earth-8 Captain Atom if the Multiverse had still existed, and neither the superhero name nor the secret identity name are the same between those two, and yet DC themselves considers them counterparts when there isn't even a Multiverse anymore (for now - changes are underway). Further, if we review Superman's early days and compare him to Uncle Sam, it seems that they're more similar than given credit here. Superman's initial powers: Superhuman strength, able to leap great distances, and being very durable (no flying yet, no vision powers yet, no hearing powers yet, no 'super-breath' yet, etc.). Uncle Sam's powers: Superhuman strength, able to leap great distances, limited pre-cognitive abilities (a difference which kept Quality from getting sued). The key for the comparisons is to remember what they were like at the time of creation. As far as the grid is concerned, I had meant to reference JLA issue 108 (vol. 1) instead of 107 (I have since corrected this), where Uncle Sam & the Earth-Two Superman went head-to-head, which would show that they are similar enough to survive each other in line with the above rationale.
Continuing with Earth-S, clearly Bulletman & Bulletgirl are counterparts to Hawkman & Hawkgirl (both sets had special costume devices to allow them to fly - 'Gravity Regulator Helmet' vs. 'Belt of Nth Metal'), Mr. Scarlet & Pinky the Whiz Kid are clearly Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder, Golden Arrow was the inspiration for Green Arrow (another case of DC/National doing the copying for a change), and so on. In regards to the complaint that the references don't show the comparisons, in the Earth-S grid, the reference is for issue 136 of JLA (vol. 1) - the story was in issues 135-137, but 136 shows the counterparts teamed together in smaller group missions (Earth-Two's Batman & Robin teamed w/ Mr. Scarlet & Pinky, and Earth-One's Hawks are teamed with the Bullets) - granted, there's no point where it specifically states "so-and-so is the direct Earth-S counterpart to so-and-so," but it shouldn't have to. Some things are just understood (and to add even more to the mix, one of the villains that fight Batman, Robin, Mr. Scarlet, & Pinky is The Weeper from Earth-S - a crying version of The Joker - who happens to be teamed-up with the Earth-Two Joker in this chapter; clearly, there is a message here).
It's not in the 'References' section yet, but there is more info on the subject matter in a variety of issues of Alter-Ego over the last several years from TwoMorrows Publishing - I've just not had the opportunity to review specific issues/articles as they are currently in storage and difficult for me to access presently (and, frankly, I never thought I'd have to fight tooth & nail over what I thought was a fairly innocuous page here), and I expect to be able to add more in the future. Thanks. Starmiter00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. All you've done with this analysis is demonstrate what I'm saying: Those correlations are original research full of your opinion. Saying one character is "clearly" based on another exerts opinion. You have acknowledged the lack of sources. This is original research.Doczilla06:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Net and Doc, this is OR, almost top to bottom. For it to be valid in almost any way, shape, or for, it's the analogue linkages that need to have verifiable, reliable sources. Even if those do exist, most of the linkages are going to be open for debate. - J Greb07:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fundamentally OR. "Further, if we review Superman's early days and compare him to Uncle Sam, it seems that they're more similar than given credit here." But we cannot review or compare anything. Someone else has to, first. Serpent's Choice11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems OK as an entry and a lot of things can be sourced to primary material but I fin the whole Earth-X column suspect (I can't see anything on the various entries to suggest the links - I don't have the source quoted but that would need checking solidly). However, the problems with the entry seem better served by working on the entry not deleting the whole thing, as most of the table seems fairly solid. (Emperor13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps a clarification of 'original research' is needed; the term is being bandied about like it's some kind of dirty word. Here's my understanding of what 'original research' is:
Claim or claims that have never been made by anyone before with no information of any kind to back it up at all, and no basis in fact
From what I'm seeing here, it seems it's more like this:
Any example of information that has not been vetted through a highly rigorous review by some undetermined number of non-specific, yet somehow authoritative, person, persons, group, or groups
I am not the first to make these claims, and my evidence is 25 years of Multiverse comics, lectures/appearances of comic-book creators at conventions, and industry magazines. I'm not sure what you're going to want as 'proof of concept' here. I'm quite good with recognizing patterns, and perhaps that's working against me here.
Bear in mind that this page isn't trying to say something like aliens were behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy - it's just a little comparison chart between fictional characters.
Also, to state the obvious, ALL research at one time was original - that doesn't automatically make it wrong, particularly if it can be backed up (and sometimes, like what is presented in JLA #136 vol. 1, the back-up is subtext). Thanks. Starmiter12:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Starmiter, I appreciate your devotion to this particular topic, and it definitely holds some interest for some. However, I think the point that we're trying to resolve is that if it is original research within Wikipedia, it does not belong here. That was the agreement we made when we joined, a one of three core guidelines. The references you've cited only marginally touch on these topics, and the only definitive characters that were specifically mentioned relate to the obvious correlations of the Supermen, Batmen, Green Lanterns and so forth. Beyond that, its really in the eye of the beholder. And when that is the case, it is best to find a different forum for such an entry rather than on this site. Netkinetic(t/c/@)03:39, 24 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 is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article England Society (Keele University). Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While the description of the Macropaedia at the top does give some context, a complete list of the encyclopedia's content is WP:NOT#IINFO as it's just the contents of the book in statistical form. FrozenPurpleCube05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the related page for the 2007 edition:
Keep with rationale. Thank you for bringing these articles to AfD, since such articles should be considered scrupulously, especially when there is a hint of WP:NOR and copyvio. However, I feel that deletion is not justified, for the following reasons:
The contents of the Macropædia provide insight into the topics that the Encyclopædia Britannica considers to be the hallmark topics of science, history and culture. Several Wikipedians have praised the utility of these lists; see for example the latest entry on Talk:List of 2007 Macropædia articles.
WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply here, since it does not mention this category of information. Moreover, these articles are not merely database dumps, but place the information in context, with links to other, more explanatory articles.
These article are not original research, unless looking up the number of pages or the year of references is. If that were deletion-worthy, a vast number of other WP articles would have to be changed; how often do we read something like, "X published a 370-page book in 1976"? If the consensus is that page numbers and year references are OR, I could delete the offending columns from the tables.
These articles are not copyvio, per this memo. Facts cannot be copyrighted, a principle that allows Tables of Contents to be copied, as we often see on amazon.com and elsewhere. The titles of these articles are drawn only from the Macropædia's Tables of Contents.
I hope that these answers address all of your concerns. Thank you for your carefulness in maintaining Wikipedia's quality, Willow08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your position at best explains a discussion of the Macropaedia itself, (which isn't disputed, an article on that is fine) not an article that simply lists its contents. And if you look at WP:NOT#IINFO, I'd say number 9 applies, namely statistics. FrozenPurpleCube13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Willow, as long as it is not a copyvio. Does not appear to be OR, and is about a notable reference work.Useful to compare extent of coverage of different encyclopedias. Edison14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willow and Edison. The choice of topics in Macropædia has a precise cultural significance and conveys a judgement of value, which influences its many readers. Think of a Wikipedia article listing, say, the contents of the Encyclopédie. Wouldn't that be (more than) acceptable? Stammer15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willow. As for WP:NOT#IINFO, I don't think this is any more stat-heavy than List of British Columbia general elections, or most other lists. I think the point of WP:NOT#IINFO is to object to the style of statistics, rather than their content. Its main rationale is that statistics "may be confusing...and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles". Following from this, the policy suggests, not deletion, but "sufficient explanatory text" and "Infoboxes or tables". I believe this list complies with these suggestions quite well, being itself in a table, and being accompanied by a brief description of the Macropedia. If this discussion turns sour anyways, at least transfer the 1974 list to my userspace prior to erasing it, so that I might have something to show for all that. It was really quite a bit of typing. Cheers! Geuiwogbil15:43, 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.
Keep You won't find me watching it, but Kamen Rider is a notable-enough show that its main group of characters should have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge all to Other Oni Kamen Rider. Then we need to fix the title of that article. At the very least, something should be done about Kamen Rider Shōki ("Only seen once in the TV series.") and Kamen Rider Eiki ("He is only seen in episodes 28 and 29."). These are characters who appeared in a few episodes of the fourteenth spinoff series of this franchise, which is over – in other words, these are permastubs. There will never, ever be "non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" about these characters. I see no evidence of notability here. Dekimasuよ!09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really call it a spinoff, but, you're right about how these will never really be as massive as the other Hibiki articles—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:57, 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.
What are you saying - that i should nominate the rest for deletion, or that because all the other episodes of the television series exist that this one should be kept? Thank you for your comment, but, also, what is your position on the AFD nom, if you would care to give one? —ÅñôñÿMôúsDîššíd3nt07:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion yet. I'm just saying that there's other stuff out there that may be deletable. It's up to you to decide what to do with them. MER-C08:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borders on nonsense, since the article does not explain what a "dummy spit" is or why it is notable. Is it a list of people who spit on a dummy? Were somehow spit on by a dummy? Roasted a dummy on a spit? Something to do with a card game? Can't speak so they just communicate by spitting????Edison14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added to the article the info that in Australia they call a baby pacifier a "dummy" so a "dummy spit" is an infantile tantrum. Edison16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 20 to 1 is a notable show, but I absolutely cannot see how any individual episodes would be, even given the propensity to have articles for every episode of series such as Buffy or The Simpsons. The show itself is about lists, so an article on an episode will merely copy that list, and so is either (a) listcruft or (b) possibly risking a bit of copyright infringement (if compared to, say, an article copying a Rolling Stone list of Top 100 songs which IIRC isn't allowed). Confusing Manifestation02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And ALL other 20 to 1 articles. episodes are non-notable and we don't want to copy the subjective and often downright wrong content presented on the show as fact. Rimmeraj03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Knowing something about the background of how the show came to be, I am strongly suspicious that this could be a subtle form of advertising for the Australian network on which the show airs, which has been having its own unique brand of troubles in recent times. I suggest deleting this and all other 20 to 1 articles other than the one on the show itself (per CJ, Rimmeraj, Conman, and possibly the nominator). Orderinchaos03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've spent some time categorising these, but I've never been happy with the reproduction of straight out lists from the episodes of the show. I'd be OK with deleting them all. --Canley04:40, 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.
Overly long, non-notable, unencyclopedic mess that in no way conforms to the manual of style. Reads like a street directory, and, as such, I have nominated it for deletion. —ÅñôñÿMôúsDîššíd3nt06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this page has been very useful to me. I'd hate to see it disappear. The page presents information in a way no other source does. Anyway not one I could find. --Nikolaj Winther07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be a phone book, or a rate card for long distance or a complete international zip code directory, or a transit schedule. Such info is available from the website of the service provider in accurate and more up to date versions. Edison14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The German Wikipedia has an article at [10]. (I should figure out how to do interwiki links in text.) Their article has a map and a summary of links to subsections that list the various cities. That said, I can't see a need to keep the detailed lists in the English Wikipedia. Maybe a summary, like the first page of the German Wikipedia article, would be useful, but the detailed lists of all prefixes are a bit much. --Elkman(Elkspeak)14:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Agreed, the list is too detailed. The map on the German article is wonderful, and a strongly edited version of the article proposed for deletion would greatly benefit from that map, if it is in the Commons. ...And it may amuse that the detailed sub-articles of the German article look a lot like the one under discussion. -- Yellowdesk17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In principle, don't we cover all countries, not just the English-speaking ones, as long as usable information is available? (Though I suggest we should give some thought to a possible better place for articles that are data collections, I wouldn't suggest removing them in the meantime. ), The length has nothing to do with it; there was an attempt this winter to eliminate ultra-long articles, and it got closed down very fast. DGG02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My first reaction was that this is non-encyclopaedic, but if there are lists of codes for other countries, we should keep this one too. My first thought was that this information must be on an existing website maintained by Deusche Telecom, and so unnecessary in WP, but it has a use, in that it provides a link to articles on the places to which the codes relate. Some one (above) described it as a street directory. It is not: it is a directory to a whole country of 70 million people. I recall that categories villages in Worcestershire, exist, so why not a list of the places in Germany arranged by area code. I am not clear how small an area American Zip codes cover (not being an American), but this is not necessarily a good analogy. Peterkingiron17:18, 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. Call me funny, but I guess I'm not in the minority when I say that former Featured Articles are frequently considered to be worthy of further development - and the issues the nominator brings up can be fixed through other channels. Just-because nominations aren't generally very fruitful. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it. Seriously. You buggers removed it from FARC even though removing for lack of ref tags was never agreed in FARC, etc. So, delete it from the face of the earth. - Ta bu shi da yu06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Just because it's not a featured article anymore does not mean that it isn't an article that's worth keeping. Where's my syringe of SSRI's? — CJewell(talk to me)08:02, 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 keep per consensus. AfD is not a place for editorial decisions, this would have been better suited to a discussion on the article's talk page. Arkyan • (talk)21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question - are we going to start pruning a few amendments from the bill of rights? i mentioned WP:POINT in another 'afd.' so i'm going to suggest that if you feel strongly that an article need be of higher quality, why not contribute? the_undertowtalk08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and de-point your commentary. I would keep them all anyway, but what is the point of your nomination? Of course they need work, and I'm sure they are highly contentious, but they also -- along with the main article -- have far better articles than the vast majority of American or international laws do. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all I'm baffled by the reasoning behind this nomination... if you want the main USA PATRIOT Act article improved then do it yourself or just ask other people to help. A lot of editors have contributed to the Title sub-articles apart from the creator, and high quality is not a reason for deletion. --Canley12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. — coelacan — 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all articles - I am not qualified to commetn on content, but the main article is already quite long enough. However, the main article looks unsatisfactory. The separate articles need to be better linked to the main one, and some one will need to watch that additonal material is added (where appropriate) to the sub-articles, rather than in a parallel expansion of the main one. This is best done by the use of a 'main' template, at the beginning of each division of the main article. Peterkingiron16:59, 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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:27, 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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:28, 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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:29, 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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:29, 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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:29, 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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:30, 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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:31, 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.
I was going to update this article to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD as this is now never likely to happen (I'm strongly disllusioned by Wikipedia and its editors), and I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon this article or the more important parent article. - Ta bu shi da yu06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. (Closing admin: see also the many "keep all" !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA PATRIOT Act, Title I.) — coelacan — 08:31, 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.
Absolutely unverified. Forthcoming film not mentioned on any of the international stars' pages. No references. The entire page is at best speculation. xC | ☎07:03, 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.
Comment: I won't have time to follow up on all these, and I know that relying on Google counts alone is evil for considering notability, but a search for <"Fred Amoroso" MacroVision> does get 192 hits in Google news. [11]—Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 08:07Z
Keep Needs sourcing, not deletion. I started, more to come. CEOs of major companies like macrovision are N, and sourceable. (Google news is different from google. In google you get mainly blogs and mirrors, in google news you get mostly news articles or database articles, many of which are pay-only but some of which are undoubted RSs, though not all of which are independent. But in either case you have to look at the individual results, not just at the count). DGG02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Public corporation CEO usually seems to classify as noteworthy. The article needs a lot more detail, however. I'll see what I can dig up on it. alvinc
Keep. Macrovision appears to be a notable company engaged in an especially contentious area of business. The Macrovision article is large, and spinning of Mr Amoroso seems sensible. Also he appears to have at least some presence as a player in the protection field. Article needs some 3rd-party verification, though. But I feel its likely that such material exists, and the solution is to add it, not delete the article. Herostratus13:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. Notability is not a characteristic of the article, which lacked sources at the time of nomination, but rather of the topic. The topic (in this case, a CEO) seems to be notable. -- Black Falcon(Talk)19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes he's a CEO, and that is no doubt mentioned on the company's page. Aside from that there's nothing here for a biography - no material at all.-Docg12:35, 25 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.
I don't have any references to cite, but I can strongly say that Valencia has toured extensively the United States, and Japan, and was named Spin Magazine Band of the Month, aswell as playing in well known musical festivals such as The Bamboozle. 74.72.106.5403:27, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
First reason: after a year and a half since the last AfD discussion, it still lacks reference or citation.
Second, and even worse, it has undergone a sneaky "minor" page "move" by an editor towards a wider naming span, unwarranted and unexplained, which is completely ignoring the previous discussion held in good faith.
Previous discussion held in September-October 2005 is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eugenics_measures_in_Japanese_Empire
(ps: was not sure which "afd" template because of the name change.) 8de809:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sterilize as unsourced. Too many claims + too few sources (actually, no sources at all) = too little reason to keep. —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 09:36Z
If kept, this page needs to be moved back to its former title. Showa Japan includes the 1980s. This article only deals with the pre-occupation government. Dekimasuよ!10:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepImperial Japan is a lot more vague and wider than Showa Japan it inludes not only the 1980's but all the Empire history, notably since the Meiji restoration. The article refer to the first part of the Showa era. The risk of confusion is certainly less now. --Flying tiger12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to point out that you were the one who moved the article? You also didn't state any reason for keeping the article. Anyway, "Imperial Japan" means 1889-1945. Showa Japan means 1926-1989. This article doesn't deal with anything after World War II. Dekimasuよ!13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is written in the history of the article, so there is no mystery... "Anyway" too, this article does not deal with the Meiji and Taisho eras either, so why "Imperial Japan" ? --Flying tiger14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support. However, I just looked, and that article is also unsourced since 2005 and there is already a section about eugenics policies at the end of the text. (There are so many articles which are unsourced on Wikipedia...) I think deletion is however certainly the last solution. The user who wrote this seems to had precise info. I think more time again should be given to research. I just spot Women and War in Japan 1937-1945 by Thomas Havens which seems to refer to propaganda activities of Katsuko Tojo. Did anyone read this essay in American Historical Review ?--Flying tiger14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added two external links indicating that the topic is quite notable. I suggest that the article be stubbified. Stammer16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't comment on the renaming issue, but two sources are provided in the External links section. The article just needs inline referencing. Also, some of the wordage in the article sounds POV - but that's not a reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've moved the two sources in the External links into a new References section and have used them for a few inline references. But some statements in the article are not supported by these two sources and there are citation tags on them. Still, not a reason for article deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Uncited statements in a highly sensitive article like this should be removed (with proper discussion, etc), but the article should not. Smmurphy(Talk)05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a malignant venomous article on Japan. For instance, National Eugenic Law is a law that permits the artificial abortion for the maternity protection including economical reasons. --Azukimonaka15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. While Japanese may feel offensed by such article, it has sources. Very notable topic. Moreover, everybody knows that Japanese united with Hitler and shared fascism. Considering their ally, topic of eugenics in Militarist Japan existed in reality, for what then fascism stands for? Vlad fedorov18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please put out the source. "everybody knows that Japanese united with Hitler and shared fascism." I regret for a wrong article to be supported by this policy. --Azukimonaka15:09, 24 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 WP:SNOW. It's impossible to nail down exactly where the notability threshold in soccer falls between Brazil and Montserrat, but the 27 caps on the national team of intermediate strength should be enough. Decisions like this will always be a little subjective. The community has spoken almost unanimously for this case. Non-admin closure. YechielMan22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a footballer who's appeared for his country be non notable. Did the nominator actually try checking him out before nominating him? This UEFA page is second up on google and clearly shows he's an international player. He's playing for Macedonia in the qualifiers for European championships of 2008. Nick mallory 11:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep has played for Macedonia's national squad! Are you sure the Cypriot First Division is not a fully professional league? I'm pretty sure it is. In any case, it's the highest league in Cyprus, and that's surely notable. --Canley12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone that plays on a national team is notable. I'm not sure what else this footballer could do to be more notable. He played at the highest level and represented his country. Sure, the article isn't long, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. --CyrusAndiron12:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For all the reasons stated above. Anyone who has played 26 internationals and who is playing in Euro 2008 qualifiers should not even be nominated for deletion.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of you are saying that he is notable because of his national team. However, that was discussed above and was said [12]. As for Cypriot league, just few clubs are professionals. No it is not fully proffessional and I know that since I am Cypriot and watch Cypriot league.
Comment Under the list of conditions at WP:BIO where a topic is "probably" appropriate for inclusion, one of the criteria is "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." The subjectivity comes from determining what highest level means. It seems that a national team should be competing at the highest level of amateur or professional sports. However, this article is a pretty weak stub without any verifiable sources given, but this is not a justification for immmediate deletion, just a reason to tag it for lack of sources and do some research. If no solid sources of information exist on thie player, the world has not recognized him as notable. Why should we? --Kevin Murray17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, we are saying he is notable because he plays for his national team (and not in a few games, but in 27 matches according to the Football Federation of Macedonia's website [13], and it isn't as if the Macedonian team is one of those teensy perennial losers like Montserrat; it's currently ranked 54th by FIFA. His Israeli team's now in the 2nd division after relegation, but it has played before in the Ligat ha'Al, and that's more than professional enough. (That aside, I dropped in because nom hit up my talk page; he isn't quite explicitly canvassing, but close enough.) RGTraynor 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What you are saying is in contrast with what you said in the talkpage of WP:BIO about Montserrat international players. Your explanation now about Monterssat has no sense because FYROM national team may be 54th but sure is not a class national team, not from even the average teams in UEFA and most important, has never played in any major competition or even a playoff to qualify to such competition. If you were comparing Monterssat with national teams such as Germany, Italy, or even Greece (which won the Euro in the past), I would have understood it. However, Monserrat may be weaker than FYROM, but sure both of them are not class teams. If he is written because he is a national player, then Monterssat player, even if they were 200th, can also be written for the same reason and that' s why I am sayiing what you said before and now are in contrast. At least may be I am the only person that I support the deletion herem, however I am permanent in what I believe and I have the courage to support it, while you supported different views before and different now.
And respnse to 2 comments of you; if Israel League is professional enough I would like to know how do u know that and where have you read it (don't tell me about success in Europe because Tbilsi qualified in Groups but however the championship is not proffessional). I am asking because someone else told me that he is sure that Cyprus League is also fully proffessional and it is enough notability, however as it happens to me to be a Cypriot, Cyprus is not at all fully proffessional, having only very few proffessional clubs in first division. As for canvassing, I didn't tell you to support the deletion of the article but because here I SEE people supporting keep and on the other hand I saw opposite views in talk of WP:BIO, including persons like you. People like you are naturally to confuse wikipedians. --User:KRBN21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, you didn't say so explicitly, but if you were cherrypicking editors whose views you thought matched your own to invite into the AfD you nominated yourself, that's clear vote-canvassing. Secondly, if you don't understand the difference between a team ranked 54th in the world and one ranked 199th and last, I can't help you, but I hope you'll understand if we find FIFA's assessment of team quality more reliable per WP:RS than yours. Thirdly, while I gave my opinion in the discussion on athlete notability, and believe current standards to be far too loose, the fact of the matter is that I am obliged to assess an AfD based on what Wikipedia policy and guidelines are, not what I wish them to be. Fourthly, I am not terribly surprised, as no one else ought to be, that a national side affiliated no more than a dozen years with FIFA hasn't so far progressed beyond the Euros or the Cup qualifiers, both of which Macedonia's played in, despite your assertion to the contrary [14]. Fifthly, Israel's premier league is certainly notable enough to have an updated page on the FIFA website [15]. Finally, I give opinions on Wikipedia based on my own reasoning and judgment, and can do so all by myself, without editorial comments by third parties about what I should think based on my past patterns. RGTraynor 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player in the highest leauge of an independent country makes notability. Even if the league is semi-pro, we can keep players in the highest league as they are the top athletes of their sport in that nation and in this case, candidates for world cup play. --Boongoman20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the comment above in bold about Macedonia not ever having played in any major competition and that they "sure are not a class team", well on 16th October 2002, Macedonia drew 2-2 with England, in England in a Euro 2004 qualifier, and only lost the return fixture 2-1. That is very notable to me. In addition it is hardly relevant, or fair, to mention that they have never qualified for any major competition, when you consider the comparitively short a space of time, when compared to most other football nations, they have even been competing internationally.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two external links as reliable sources (the BBC and UEFA), they are small but contain a fair bit of statistical and biographical data about this player. Hopefully this will allow him to at least just meet Wikipedia's primary notability guideline. That said, there appears to be a spate of notability-based AfDs recently which insist on applying subjective notability criteria based on perceived sporting prowess or ranking, as if we should exclude players, teams and leagues which despite being at the highest level in their country or region "only came 70th in the world" or "qualified for the Olympics but came last in their event" or some other such arbitrary level of inclusion. --Canley01:48, 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.
Notability not asserted. Only a handful of relevant Ghits, sans official site. Written like an ad. Previously speedied. soum(0_o)09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's an ad and not an article. Let somebody re-write it from scratch because company is public - and therefore notable (and if only someone could write not biased article about it...) Renata14:50, 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.
Context not provided, people unfamiliar will have a hard time understanding what the campaign is all about, who started it and why etc etc. Plus, nothing is referenced well. I suspect that it might be an in-university campaign, in which case, I doubt its notability. Title also will make it largely inaccessible. soum(0_o)10:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further looking, it looks like the work of a bunch of students from the National University of Singapore writing articles as some sort of class project. This is one of the articles. Please stalk my contributions and help me clean up their handiwork, if you're in the mood for wikifying pages. :) Thanks! —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 10:42Z
Keep But wikify, inline-reference, and rename to English title. "华语Cool" is in fact the campaign slogan of the Speak Mandarin Campaign of Singapore. And a few references are provided in the References section of the article - unfortunately they are not links so they're not verifiable online. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The use of non-Roman characters in article titles is also to be deplored, since only Chinese readers will be able to search for it. Renaming before merging is pointless, as it will merely generate a surplus redirect. Peterkingiron17:28, 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.
Non-notable indy wrestler, only turned pro 2 years ago and works for a non-notable organsiation. Article creator name implies a conflict of interest in that it appears to be the subject of the article. –– Lid(Talk)10:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Commenting after reverting blanking) Delete - as nominator says, no notability indicated whatsoever. Could be considered if he makes it to the bigger feds, but local indies don't really meet the guidelines. Tony Fox(arf!)20:35, 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.
Delete Internal college newspapers are generally only considered notable if they are known about beyond their college. A1octopus13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; and it's likely that the only people who knew about the newspaper before it was placed on Wikipedia were the residents of the town that college was in. Acalamari19:11, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. It's an actual town, but not notable. Facts are wrong, since killer is from Centreville. And Virginia should be capitalized. THF15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This *IS* a real town. Towns named both CenTERville and CenTREville exist in Virginia. For confirmation, see here: [23] and here: [24]. Per MSNBC, CenTERville (this one) is the home of the spree killer [25]. Therefore, this town has now risen from a non-notable backwater hamlet, to national significane as the home of an infamous murderer, and deserves a wiki article. Elambeth15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The MSNBC article actually uses both spellings so one is typo. Also, to be confusing, there are TWO CenTERville, VAs. The other is on the east coast next to Williamsburg. Jmbox15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and move to Centerville, Virginia (may need a disambiguation page there if there really are two Centerville, VAs) - the only reason for this page to be deleted is if the town is proven not to exist, which has not been the case here. Whether some spree/serial killer hailed from here is irrelevant to whether this town is real. —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 12:06Z
Searching [26] finds six places named Centerville, VA. US 13 and SR 176 pass through one (the second one on the list), while SR 129 serves another (the third one, though it's actually a bit north of where the search result leads). The killer was from "Centreville, Va., a suburb of Washington". --NE212:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, Cho is from the Centreville in Northern Virginia, from a Fairfax County Public Schools email I received "We have confirmation that the alleged shooter, Seung-Hui Cho of Centreville, was a student at Virginia Tech and is a 2003 graduate of Westfield High School." Mapquest has 7 "Centervilles" in its DAB page [27]. --MPDT / C14:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any given state will usually have between 5 and 10 towns with this name. Trust me, it's a gigantic pain in the ass to figure out which is which. Don't rely on Google or Mapquest to figure this out - find a good atlas at a library or something. And don't just redirect to Centreville, Virginia - that's COMPLETELY wrong. --- RockMFR17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Get this - there are not only 1 but actually 8 populated places in Virginia with the exact name Centerville with that spelling [29]. The one in question in this article, I believe, is the one in Montgomery County, and the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce believes this community exists, as well [30]. US Census maps show that this area hasn't been incorporated into any other cities so I cannot conclude it is merely a neighborhood and it must be a town in its own right, and per precedent all inhabited cities/towns/villages are notable. This actually should be converted to a dab page, with this information moved to Centerville, Virginia (Montgomery County) and this turned into a dab page pointing there as well as the existing Centreville, Virginia - and future "Centerville, Virginia" articles as they are created. Arkyan • (talk)18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. All cities, towns, and villages are by precedent notable. There are a lot more small towns and villages than most people realize. Support creating a dab page for all the Centervilles and Centrevilles in Virginia. --Charlene19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments of those who would would delete this page hinge on 2 arguments: (1) The town doesn't exist, which is plainly not the case per the links in the article, and (2) The Virginia Tech spree killer isn't from here so it's not notable, which is not the case per news reports, and wouldn't remove the town's notability, even if it were true. 170.252.11.1120:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely being one of the places where a murderer lived is not enough to establish notability for a geographic area, IMHO. As always, I'd be happy to reconsider if additional evidence were produced. --ElKevbo21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - are we sure that this is a town and not just a neighborhood? There are lots of little tiny sections that aren't even towns around there. I don't know what the technical designation is because where I live we don't have the equivalent ... but it looks like this place is on the order of a neighborhood. --BigDT (416) 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Google Maps, Centerville VA can be found here, and even has a state highway named of it. As a sidenote, Centreville, VA (note the British spelling) can be found here, off of Interstate 66. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's on Google maps, but a lot of those places on there are not actual municipalities. (By the way, the map you gave is NOT the Centerville we are talking about. You linked to somewhere near Williamsburg on the opposite side of the state.) They have no seat of government. I found this list here - http://www.montgomerycc.org/montgomery.htm - that calls it a "community". I'm not familiar with Centerville, but I am familiar with Prices Fork, Toms Creek, and Lusters Gate. None of those are actual municipalities - they are neighborhoods. I can only assume that Centerville is the same thing. --BigDT (416) 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From the look of the map, this is probably what I would (as an Englishman) would refer to as a village. AS Charlene said villages are notable. Peterkingiron09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 170.252.11.11 and Dennis the Tiger. Most of the delete votes hinge on WP:HOAX, which has been shown to be incorrect, a claim that being the place of residence of a mass murdered doesn't give notability (also incorrect), and one unexplained claim for a double-plus speedy delete. -- Black Falcon(Talk)19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected hoax.The article states that Centerville is a town in Montgomery County, Virginia. Montgomery County, Virginia does not have a Centerville or a Centreville. The nominator suggests the article was posted to make a point by taking advantage of the WP:RS confusion between the Centerville and Centreville spellings. A purpose of the article seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to perpetuate the confusion set out in newspaper articles over the spelling of Centerville and Centreville and the location of events relative to the Virginia Tech massacre. In any event, no matter how notable, important, or famous this topic is, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee18:14, 26 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.
Delete There isn't even enough new info to warrant a new section in the Inhertance trilogy article, let alone a whole new article. All information in this article could be easily fit into the criticism section. Not to mention it's a clear case of a POV fork. Definitely not warranted. There isn't even a seperate article for criticims of the Da Vinci Code, and that would be much more warranted (but still innappropriate.) Brentt04:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really, the article needs to be a lot longer in order to justify being a standalone article; I think Brentt is right when saying all the information could easily fit into the criticism section of the Eragon and Eldest articles. Ultimately, I think the subject lacks the notable sources which would allow us to do this. Until we can find more sources to make an even longer page I don't think the topic merits its own article. UnaLaguna06:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All this article does is encourage original research because of the difficulty in finding notable, reliable sources to back the claims up that aren't just one sentence worth of information. I even had to respond to a message the other day where someone suggested we use ignore all rules to "expand" the article with original research. And, of course, it's a POV fork and there is so little information here that it would barely take any room at all on the main article pages. --pIrish12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be cleaned up and sourced reliably. Unfortunately, the problem with most Inheritance criticism is that it's from clearly biased sources with no coverage of the flaws in their reasoning. I'm not opposed to the subject of criticism articles, but this one needs to be watched carefully. FrozenPurpleCube15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any noteworthy and referenced criticisms should be merged back into the appropriate article(s) (Eragon, Eldest, et al). No reason to push it into its own page - the only reason it's grown "too large" is because people feel the need to include every critic they can dredge up which is patently unecessary. Arkyan • (talk)18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expressed my concern over the absence of sufficient sources a couple months ago, and in the interim I've seen no evidence that there's any solid basis for an article. The few referenced bits can be placed in their proper context in the "Critical response" sections on the pages for the books and/or the series as a whole. Brendan Moody19:56, 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.
Delete Article was prod'd. Author removed prod, it seems, because the diet helped him and that was sufficient reason for it to be here. The author who prod'd it advised the author to improve the article and provide some sources. So far. (s)he hasn't. Postcard Cathy14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedy delete. This unreferenced page proposes the revelation that you can lose weight by eating less and moving more (ELMM is an acronym). Relatively short, unreferenced, and almost entirely free from context even if its basic premise is sound; Wikipedia is not for everything that's true. - Smerdis of Tlön14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. If there are any famous dietitians using this acronym often (unlikely based on Ghits), perhaps redirect or disambiguate to them. Smmurphy(Talk)04:47, 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.
There is no reason for the creation of this article. This is because all the Pokemon included in it are notable enough to have their own articles. Also, why the list is 1 to 20 only is not explained. Thus the article is seriously harming the integrity of Wikipedia and should be deleted. Vikrant Phadkay15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Active merger discussion is going on on said article's talk page. Quite a few people within the PCP project (A Man In Black before he left, Erik the Apperciator, You Can't See Me, Amarkov, me; even Zappernapper, but he favors evo line merging) do not agree that all the Pokemon are notable enough to each have their own articles. Please do not attempt to use WP:AFD to force merger decisions or to delete an idea that you disagree with. hbdragon8819:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Isn't there a list of all the pokemon anyway? Who cares about weather the pokemon articles desrve to be there this is about this article. DBZROCKS11:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of all Pokémon serves a different purpose, as it merely lists the Pokémon and doesn't give any descriptions (that would make the page much too long!). This page, on the other hand, is a work-in-progress merger of different Pokémon species pages (meaning articles like Whismur). – mcy1008 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmm, looking at the comments here, does that mean some would prefer deleting the 25 planned list pages and just do the merging by evo line while leaving the single-stage Pokepages like Dunsparce alone? (That mergist plan is the creation of You Can't See Me! (talk·contribs), a plan which I had disagreed with myself somewhat, and Zappernapper's compromise merge plan using the 25 list pages is the one that was trying to be implemented here prior to the AFD) Whatever consensus decides is what I would support personally. Erik Jensen(Appreciate|Laugh At)19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the Pokemon franchise is notable enough to justify a list of the characters. But possibly expand it to include all of them, or have as few separate lists as possible to facilitate searching for information and delete all individual articles which lack multiple independent sources with substantial coverage of the individual character, in accord with WP:A. The info about each can be pared down enough to fit in one list by removing unsourced original research and excessive detail. Edison14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy throw out this discussion this is a gross violation of WP:POINT. The nominator has expressed disagreement with a planned merger and is using this AFD to try and gain support of his view. Discussion on the subject of a merge has been done in the past, several times. Erik is really good at finding them all so i'll leave it up to him if anyone wants more than the most recent. If anyone outside of the project is interested in this, and the precendent it might set, discussion is invited at the article's talk page, this talk page, or at the project. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly as good as the big list and the individual articles. The merging idea has been suggested before, but never was there anything resembling consensus for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the big list, this serves a different purpose, describing rather than simply listing. As for the individual articles, they generally do not have much sourced information in them, short of a few headers and a few sentences under each header. They can easily be summarized in a single section of a list such as this. – mcy1008 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its totally unfair to nominate an article for deletion when there is active discussion going on the talk page. Deletion is not even mentioned once in the talk page and until it is this should be closed quickly. --PrincessBrat19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay AfD If there's a merge discussion going on right now, and it predates the AfD, it should probably be considered first. i kan reed19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am inclined to agree that there is an influence of WP:POINT violation here, but it's not because I am in anyway close to this article or related pages concerning this mergism effort; there was a lot of discussion over at WP:POKE for at least the past five months about how many of the 493 separate articles on Pokemon species, having hardly been the subject of coverage by reliable second-party sources as per WP:ATT, must rely on game guide, trivia, and sourcing to fansites to fill them up with content lest they remain unexpandable stubs (none of this is my personal opinion about this, it's what the other users citing Wikipedia's content policies were saying; I would have been content with having it remain at 493 articles had none of those debates took place), and it was suggested, by myself at times, that implementing an alternative setup of species sharing articles would both remove the need for such mediocre information, promote the more practical information about the species to more of Wikipedia's general demographic of readers rather than just to the Pokemon fan community, and possibly allow for better sourcing. I and others suggested several merge plans over time, and they generally did not gerner much consunsus at all like Starblind notes above, but recently a proposal came up that garnered more consensus than before (detailed here and here). Based on the apparent consensus to do that, I made this page and started making its companion pages and template (which obviously aren't anywhere nere being finished, BTW), because I consider myself a strict supporter of consensus. I believe this AFD nomination somewhat violates WP:POINT like many others here are saying, not just for the reason they give, but that the nominator may have benefited from carefully reading the complete debates about merging species pages in WP:POKE's history (where applicable Wikipedia content policies were often cited) to find out firsthand everything I just detailed historically, and then engaging the project critically, constructively, and thoroughly before making the decision to attempt an AFD (discussions in particular are linked here and below in its subsections, here, here, and here and below in its subsections for easier reference), but his AFD nomination and telling me outright to stop making the pages doesn't really help matters. I think this could have been a good-faith mistake and misinterpretation of Wikipedia content policy on the nominator's part, and I most certainly do NOT want to antagonize anybody on the internet with what I do on Wikipedia, which is why I make it a point to follow consensus, and if consensus either calls for making a Pokemon species mega-merge or for not making it and keeping it at 493 separate articles, I'll follow it. Erik Jensen(Appreciate|Laugh At)20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, to explain my stance, when I saw the talk page on WP:POKE and found Vikrant's comment linking to this very AFD (and in fact describing this as "something to wish them luck"), I could only assume it was flat-out trying to prove a point. I suspect this and the other are bad-faith nominations, but can't be sure - but they sure sound like it. The politics in the project might say otherwise, so I'll leave that in your hands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vikrant Phadkay is just a staunch opposer of the merging (as well as the delisting Torchic and the failed nom of Crawdaunt), that's all. More users agree than disagree with the merger. AFD is not the appropriate venue to discuss this, however. hbdragon8823:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...with all due respect, what reason? What I saw is that you didn't like the concept of a merge of these articles, so you nominated the targets for deletion! That, to me, is a violation of WP:POINT and an act of bad faith! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some had questioned the notability of pokemon and merging them to these lists seems like the percfect solution. I see no merit for deleting the list as serves a purpose without going in to too much detail. The Placebo Effect12:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, list pages like this aren't the main part of the mergism concept being debated here, this is actually about Pidgey evolutionary line, an example of what a merged-by-evo-line page that would apply to most Pokemon with evo-lines would look like, and it's far from completed. As Zappernapper claims, talking about the Pidgey line members in one article provides far more likeliness to forge a real article by Wikipedia standards, because there's more info and context about them, so those are much more likely to attain GA and A-Rank status than most of the individual pages which were agreed in the past by others that they couldn't make it past stub status much of the time. Of course, none of this should be considered strictly my opinion; my opinion right now is that I won't bother touching any of these pages until after the debates have settled on a conclusion or solution, whatever it may be. Erik Jensen(Appreciate|Laugh At)16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean one big article? Wouldn't that create the longest article in Wikipedia history? Or do you mean only have the evolution lists and not the normal ones? Funpika21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Out of curiosity, where were all of you when this discussion was going on? Why are you just complaining about it after the fact? However you look at it, there was a consensus to merge, and if you came to this discussion or the one it links to, you might have had a say in how they would be merged. In fact, these discussions are still on active pages, and yet somebody decided to come complaining here. As noted multiple times above, this sounds a lot like somebody's disrupting a Wikipedia project to make a point. You Can't See Me!03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I am going to say keep because the nominator should have paid attention to the discussions on this matter. This is also a merge in progress. The nominator appears to be violating WP:POINT and possibly even WP:OWN. Funpika20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's still debate going on in re the merging, and although I am an opponent of the grouping by evo-line and oppose this (list 20 at a time) measure based on the fact that all it will do is make Pikachu that much more special, it is the most practical way to deal with the inherent problems of crufty and shifty sources for each one of the articles. I feel that Vikrant needs to step away from the grindstone and put the axe down. -Jeske(v^_^v)20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean YOU are playing Diamond and Pearl. Please don't speak for everybody, I like the anime more than the games, so you're wrong not all of us are playing that game. Anyway, this nomination will be done tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Well! If that's the case, that must mean you'll have the time to fully contribute to the merger discussions that will occur at WP:PCP/Layout. In fact, everyone on here should take notice that it will be at that talk page where all discussions, ideas, oppositions, and concerns for the Pokemon-species merger project will be centralized. Says Zapper, at least. Erik Jensen(Appreciate|Laugh At)20:05, 24 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.
Sorry, not being snide, but Pancreatic Cancer is the most fatal of all diseases and for this person to claim a self-cure while looking to sell motivational books strikes me as potentially fraudulent and unfair to people who may be suffering from terminal illnesses. When I read his account of writing 38 books and numerous screenplays in a 6 month period, I am moved beyond incredulity - recommend delete on the basis of notability Brunonia22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your comment was very snide and it makes me wonder if you really have concern for pancreatic patients, or you want to use that platform to defend your rude behavior. There's no excuse for rudeness. I appreciate your concern for the people who have pancreatic cancer and see why you think they should not be given a possible false hope. I never gave that impression in this article. I am innocent of that accusation. I never said he had pancreatic cancer. I never said he had four holes-in-one. I have never written anything like that. I see no reason why it should be removed.LaurieFoston06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there don't seem to be any independent sources to indicate he's any more important than any other motivational speaker - but I don't see why there's such an edit war going on about his cancer claims - whether or not it's true is beside the point - all that the quote in question says is that he claims to have made a full recovery. - iridescenti(talk to me!)13:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, it doesn't matter if he has cancer or not. What matters is that statements like this: "He was a past PGA Tour Golf manager and wrote books on Ben Hogan's secret swing and may very well be considered by some to be one of the world's foremost authorities on golf instruction" cannot be verified by anyone. Who considers him to be the foremost authority? There are not any sources listed that verify any of the information in the article. Until sources are produced, this article has nothing to stand on, cancer or not.--CyrusAndiron14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who believe in Mike Cortson. A lot of them. There are people who believed in Oral Roberts. How credible is the source that says the people were healed when Oral Roberts laid hands on them? All of your listed authors have links to their web sites. No one deleted them yet. I could improve the article by removing the hype that he "may well be considered by some as one of the world's foremost authorities on golf" I like that suggestion, thank you.
So, the people who have had pancreatic cancer, who also read Mike's books and were given hope, should now have a rug jerked out from under them by Wikipedia debating his credibility. (Lead us not into false hope--Oral Roberts or Mike Cortson) Imagine what a shock if they somehow came across this posting? Be careful of accusing people of being fraudulent. It could result in a lawsuit. The man used to be a lawyer. I highly recommend that we let this thing go. It's positive thinking... I'm all for it and I've got better things to do. It's all to motivate otherwise hopeless, helpless individuals. I heard his radio shows...I am convinced he is a sincere person. He's an author. Disprove it!
If that article is removed from Wikipedia, then there are thousands more that need to go. This is really turning into a witch hunt. I'm reading, learning and understanding and so you are going to have to bear with me, and others like me, or lock out only people who have a proven track record for telling only the facts.LaurieFoston23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You come up with these sources that prove your claims to be true, it's likely that we'll reconsider our stance. As for now, there is no proof, and we are closing shop. Oral Roberts has other sources than just himself (magazines like TIME and other stuff have reported on him). Stop characterizing this as a "witch hunt" - nobody is out to personally get this man. If the Oral Roberts article didn't have a single external source, we'd delete it in a heartbeat. hbdragon8823:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the comment in question came from a pdf file (which is what publishers use to publish) called, "My Various Quotes Along The Way". There is nothing there, or in what I wrote that said he had pancreatic cancer or that he healed himself. I am not surprised at someone who could have written 38 books in such a short time either. The books don't have to be novels to be considered books, you know. Books can be only a few pages. I wrote a children's story in 30 minutes that was published in 1998. Surely you don't have the mindset that the 38 books would all be 120,000 word novels? Books like that one in particular may take only 30 minutes for some...30 years for others. But as for your comment about the four holes-in-one...you must have been looking at another page. I never made any such claim. LaurieFoston00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hbdragon88 or Brunonia, (I don't know which to call you since I address one of you and the other replies)Do you officially challenge this man to be a fraud? If he was a lawyer, he knows what he can say on the Internet that fits the truth within the framework of this country's laws. I can see he is an author, public speaker and motivator. These claims call for some recognition on Wikipedia as you do for other authors. You should've been diplomatic enough to say it from the start if that's not the case. Instead, he could view this debate as humiliation in a public forum.LaurieFoston05:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the books on his list are children's stories. Some of them are available if you want to buy them. I did not list them before because that would have been advertising and it would have started a round of deletion notices etc. unless it came from someone like Stephen King. You will not understand how fast these can be written if you're not an author. You need to look before you leap in the future.[32].LaurieFoston12:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see the pdf files on the non-published works you may find that to be something he will not allow to post on this debate. The screenplays are listed there. I just received a jpeg of a medical bill from him. Do you have any idea how degrading this is? Did you ask Esther Hicks all of this? She must have proven that she was able to contact the dead.
How do you want that medical bill presented? I have a pdf file on one of the screen plays on my computer. I believe you can see from his library that there are books listed there. I don't think it is any of your business what the play is until you pay money to read it. This was available through the link that I attached to the article to begin with.
Comment - this discussion seems to be getting way too heated over a technical point, and Brunonia, IMO while you're right to say it should be deleted in it's current form, you're arguing for a reason that is clearly wrong. As I've already said above, if he's claiming to have recovered whether or not it's true than the article is perfectly entitled to say that he claims it. (David Ickeclaims to have proof that Kris Kristofferson is actually a giant lizard. Just because the article discusses his claims doesn't mean they are - or aren't - true.) LaurieFoston, I've left a more detailed (and hopefully more cool-headed) discussion of what is wrong with the current article and how to put it right on my talk page. - iridescenti(talk to me!)16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rofl, where did I ever say he was a fraud? Nowhere, that's where. Brunonia is leading the charge and doubting his claims. Nobody here has accused you of doing this for Mr. Cortson. What the hell does Esther Hicks have anything to do with this? She has never claimed to have a self-cure for cancer. We're not here whethe to decide if the claims here are true or false; we only report on what others have already reported. Hicks might be totally wrong but we're not here to judge that. This article is expected to follow the same standard. hbdragon8823:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the overview and pages more of the same that everyone else had to read, I believe my best plan would be to do nothing about this today or tomorrow. I'll start by watching, continuing to read and learn.LaurieFoston08:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any independent sources to verify notability. Subject's top-ranked book on Amazon was a decidedly non-notable #996,849. Caknuck00:43, 25 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.
Same contents as Islam in Myanmar and Burmese Indians, pointless to have 3 same articles, where the contents and sourced materials are virtually the same. Beware of personal attacks and accused of being racist as the author is known for playing "race" card whenever someone question the factual accuracy and POV pushing of the article. Okkar22:21, 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.
Strong Keep - It provides a place to discuss alternate formulations of these postulates. It makes no sense to either burden to the special relativity article with the material being covered here, or leave the issues being raised here uncovered. --EMS | Talk18:40, 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.
Reason the page should be deleted Nelson50504:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the Society of Conservative Old Catholics no longer exists. Their website has been given to another group. The Society of Conservative Old Catholics lasted two months and does not deserve mention. Please delete. Please note that I was the original author. -Nelson505[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.
This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu06:44, 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.
Non-notable group. The talk page even states that it remains to be seen what impact they will have thus violating crystal balling. –– Lid(Talk)11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up and coming artistes I guess... charted at #34 on UK singles chart [33]. Will need to be moved to correct capitalisation, if kept. —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 11:53Z
Delete - unless more information can be added. While this group is notable from the relevant hit Thou Shalt Always Kill, there isn't nearly enough info on the group to warrant an article. All that aside, it should be wiki-fied and renamed Dan le Sac vs Scroobius Pip to match their actual name. Watered almonds06:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename- The band's title is actually Dan Le Sac vs. Scroobius Pip. Their song has received moderate airplay in Britain, and its video has received hundreds of thousands of views on Youtube. They are a notable band, buyt their page needs to be correctly titled, wikified, and probably should be no longer than a few sentences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porvida (talk • contribs) 15:40, 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.
A rather waffly article about an alleged new scientific discipline. There may be scope for an article about the hybrid shower providing that the article actually explains how the thing works. But I have a strong suspicion that this is merely spam for the linked-to company. -- RHaworth11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
==please ensure you don't basterdise the web link which is why it was promptly removed by "showerscience" after seeing what occurs here with startling regularity. We didn't think that their site would receive such a hammering.
Perhaps this "select" type of membership might basterdise energysavingshower.com which is ours at least instead.
Leave the poor buggers at frost alone. Clearly we are putting ourselves to blame for bringing out the worst of the members.
Unfortunately providing the good end of the stick to others leaves one with the bad end.
We wont be as embarrassed on another occasion an learn to expect this type of low level constructive critiscism. ==User: showerscience--203.87.50.3907:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some good ideas here for minimizing energy use in showering: avoid excess airflow into the shower, and line the shower with low conductivity material instead of tile. This could be incorporated in articles on energy conservation. A fiberglass shower stall with a door which seals somewhat, or a plastic shower curtain inside the tub with a cloth shower curtain outside would achieve some of the benefits. But the article is promoting to a "science" an article in a website about how, if the shower stall is sealed and insulated, you don't need to heat the bathroom. This does not address how unbearable it would be in the summer in a hot climate, or how cold the user would be when he opened the door and stepped out into the cold bathroom at 50 degrees F or lower per the website, or basic notions of humans needing air to breathe. It claims there is not condensation on the window, but ignores the humidity rise in the bathroom when the sealed enclosure is opened. No evidence that the 'science' is anywhere accepted as such. Edison15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentShowerscience, please scroll down the list of AFDs for a second. Do you see any other discussions with headings? (equal signs before and after the title like this: ==== In the summer ====). If you have a reply, do so in under the comment you're replying to. Please follow the format listed at WP:AFD. While you're there, take a look at the etiquette section. Attacking people is not going to save the article or bring any people over to your side. Edison raised some valid points without attacking you or your ideas. It would be courteous and civil for you to reply in the same manner. Not everyone will agree with you. However, this is a discussion and there is nothing wrong with asking questions. --CyrusAndiron17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Pure spam, with any doubt removed by the postings by the article's creator embedded in the AfD. (I also recommend the removal of said postings after this AfD is complete.) --EMS | Talk18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is not only nonsensical and very, very short on any facts, the way that User:Showerscience describes this more resembles a school science project. This isn't anything new and innovative - it's steam heat in an inefficient output mechanism, BFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total gibberish. I actually have no idea what this article is about, or what the author is talking about here. AFAIK, it's the bastard child of garage invention and a school science project - neither of which are even remotely notable. --Haemo23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger. What can we say..........showerscience here. Next time we will put far more into the predigestion process for any who have a bad digestive system. At this time what can we say other than we are sorry that it has brought out the worst in this lot. With this sort of membership dominating, it reminds us of a forum once used to burn witches or a soccer match with many hoons.
We are not as embarrassed at this time for the content in the light of this type of thoughtless "press the delete button game show" mentality, so clearly represented by the bunch so far. (A lot of projection here.). Not much to be embarrassed about for shower science if this is all a forum like this has to offer.Showerscience.203.87.50.3905:25, 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 Redirect. This was a difficult AfD, but I am happy with the by and large civil discussion that took place in a contentious and emotional topic. The main reasoning was 1) at the end there was a roughlly 2/3rds majority in favor of deletion and that majority becomes even stronger when one removes very new users and IPs. 2) As a policy matter, the deletion arguments were stronger. Claims that she was a motivation behind the killings and not simply the first unlucky person seem to have little basis and if they turn out to be true, a separate article can always be recreated. If, as with Rachel Scott she becomes notable, then we can easily recreate the page. In general, per long-standing policy, victims of crimes are not notable simply for being victims, and at this point there is no reason to think that there is anything else occuring in this case. However, one point must be made clear: some users (some in favor of keeping, others in favor of deletion) seem to have confused notability with meaningfulness or worth as a human being. For example, one person arguing for deletion stated that "She didn't do anything meaningful and didn't even die meaningfully; she is, was, and forever will be no one"- Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with whether someone's life was "meaningful", whether the person "died meaningfully" or whether the person is "no one". I don't pretend to know what makes a life meaningful or to know what it means to die meaningfully, but I do know that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia inclusion standards. Wikipedia inclusion is not the test for whether or not one has succeeded in life or whether the person's life was meaningful. There is no "sola Wikipedia" or something similar. Too often we get caught up in paying too much attention to what occurs on this project. Let us not forget that there is a wider world out there and let's show some respect for the dead. JoshuaZ00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Not notable beyond the event of her death. We've gone through this on numerous others. Unless she had something which made her notable before her death she is just a section of the main article as the initial victim. Also, at this point, much is speculation. See the AfD for Ryan C. Clark for another example. StuffOfInterest12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She was not affiliated with Cho Seung-hui. In the event that more information is found that makes her a prominent figure in this, this article can be easily recreated.
Strong Keep It does seem that she was the major motivation behind this event. If that is indeed the case, she's certainly notable. The article should definitely be kept atleast until this is clearly determined. If she was in fact not involved with the assailment (as seems to be the case), and there was no other causal relationship between her and the events, then my vote goes to a Merge. I suggest waiting until the facts are more clearly established. --Daydreamer30200022:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether she wasn't notable before the shooting doesn't seem that important: she's still notable. Although it isn't an acceptable reason for a keep vote, I would like to point out that we have articles on Rachel Scott (who was also the first victim) and Cassie Bernall from Columbine. And for the record, Cho Seung-hui wasn't notable before his death either. In any event, this article has sources that assert the notability of the subject, exactly the type of article we should encourage on Wikipedia. --YbborTalkSurvey!12:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not an appropriate comparison because those two Columbine victims have had entire books written about them. Is that the case for this woman? Not yet. In the future, if she is covered in the same way those victims are, she'll have her article, too. For now, it's just too early.---Gloriamarie21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, that's why I explicitly stated in my !vote that "Although it isn't an acceptable reason for a keep vote..." In a similar fashion, the nominator's mention of Ryan C. Clark is equally as poor justification. I still think it fulfills notability, it has "multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The fact that a single event made her notable seems wholly irrelevant. --YbborTalkSurvey!18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree about the Ryan C. Clark issue. OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't apply here. The nominator doesn't appear to have been saying delete this because Ryan C. Clark was deleted (which is a poor argument) but that the AFD for Ryan C. Clark provides many arguments for why the article on him was deleted which also apply here. If you were mentioning the Rachel Scott etc AFDs which provided argument which apply here then it would be a similar thing but you're just mentioning the existance of the article which isn't a good argument. As mentioned by someone else below, most of the arguments for the existance or Rachel Scott etc likely don't apply here. Nil Einne23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scott and Bernall became (arguably) notable after their deaths due to various projects which they inspired, not simply because of how they died; Cho, obviously, became (unfortunately) notable slightly prior to his death. MisfitToys20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to expand upon my original argument. A lot of people are bringing up WP:MEMORIAL. All this states is that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The article is not about her being fondly remembered, and the sources talk about her beyond being fondly remembered. She's noteable for something beyond being fondly remembered. so WP:MEMORIAL doesn't really apply. --YbborTalkSurvey!19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As of now, the subject isn't notable beyond the Virginia Tech massacre. Ybbor mentioned in his keep vote above that Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott each have their own articles, but they have achieved a level of notability beyond (albeit connected to) the circumstances of their deaths through a book and an outreach program, respectively. I will fully support a new article for Hilscher once she receives some kind of notability other than having died in this incident, but until then, my vote is to delete. (My original intent was to vote to merge the article with Virginia Tech massacre or Cho Seung-hui, but the information seems to already be in those articles). Jeff Silvers13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If information comes out in upcoming weeks indicating her to be more notable (like if she was the chief motive), then we can always recreate it.--MrFishGo Fish13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The girl was not in a relationship with the killer, reportedly didn't even know him, and is just one of 31 people killed. She is the first in the timeline, but there is no need for her own page. Are we going to have an individual page for each victim? I highly doubt it, and this page would just end up being a quasi-memorial to her. All of the reports about her relationship with Cho have proven to be false, so there is no need to keep attempting to pull her into a melodramatic fictional story about an angry ex-boyfriend. Bluefield13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. it is too early to say whether this article is of use. for now it may be of use, and as news develops, it is wiser to keep adding to this article. Kingturtle13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. She's the first victim, and really nothing more. Other than shoddy initial reporting that she was a girlfriend to Cho, which seems borderline impossible (especially considering her real boyfriend was questioned and in custody of officials), there is nothing about her that seperates her from the other victims. If not for bad reports, she's just the first person (however tragically) killed. She isn't the "spark" to this incident, at most she was an object of obsession for the killer. President David Palmer13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteDelete or Merge Showcasing someone because she was a (first) victim in a massacre, is not very encyclopaedic. She fails to qualify notability criteria, plus the article will never have any RS for anything besides her being the first victim.--Scheibenzahl14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well according to news reports(including bbc news on the bbc world channel) they knew each other, and a disagreement between them might have started it. again this is not a memorial, she was the first and according to this credible source(which I rely on for editing) she could have been in the center of it. So yes she is notable. also according to the bbc he didn't write the note until after he killed her and the dorm resident. maybe it wasn't even planned. either way it goes once the dust settles, if this page is deleted, it will be recreated once there are concrete evidence of her involvment. --Witchinghour14:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all you guys below please don't put words in my mouth, i didn't say here that they were in love. I don't know either one of them. but on the bbc news channel which is not a tabloid type of channel as far as i know, they said that it might have revolved around her, that's all. And as for the US media, i think they are busy in vilifiyng him. just read the titles on the cnn.com website such as "Downright 'Mean'". --Witchinghour15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being in a love affair with a would-be serial killer does not make one notable. If she was 100 miles away from Cho on Monday, would a word have been written about her in the BBC, or anywhere else? I suppose not! —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 14:45Z
He was a multiple murderer, not a serial killer. And either way, she isn't notable for such alleged and unverified involvement. Onikage725
Delete I haven't seen any credible American media reports that Hilscher knew Cho, let alone that they were dating, so any statements to this effect are only speculation at this point in time. I would rather delete this page now than keep it and spread false information. --38.100.43.5014:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should keep it! And we should also add articles about her friend who intervened what may have started the killing. And about her parents because they were interviewed about the relationship (though sadly, they seem to have known nothing). And about the parents of the intervening friend--at least the local media is sure to have interviewed them, so there must be something in the news about them. And about the gardener of the father-in-law of the ex-babysitter of the ex-boyfriend of the elementary school classmate of the intervening friend because in case he doesn't know a thing, he hasn't followed the news and that's quite noteworthy with respect to such an event. And about... --Ibn Battuta14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not notable enough for her own article. Perhaps a mention in the Cho article, OR a specific mention in the Massacre page, but not her own article. As sad as it is that she died, she simply isn't notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Ubergenius15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedeia is not a memorial with articles for everyone who is murdered. The university police thought her murder was a non-notable domestic event until the killer shot people inthe classrooms a couple of hour later. In spree killing articles, the victims names are often listed in the main article, or are mentioned in describing the sequence of events, since these tragedies unfold over time and space and there may be interactions between the killer and victims which affect the sequence of events (unlike most plane crashes or terrorist bombings where the names are generally not listed. Edison15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad the professors are getting articles, they definitely deserve them under WP:PROF, however this girl is not notable for anything but being dead. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth argument... she was in no way notable in life. Of course her name is information that should be in the main article and murderers article. --Jimmi Hugh15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anything in this that may be of value needs to be moved to Cho's page. Later on, if they release a lot of his writing and we find proof that she was a major part of his motives, then remake the article with that information. If not, no seperate article is needed. J0lt C0la16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely KEEP!!! She is the first victim in THE worst school shooting in U.S. history and as the event continues to play out on the media her unfortunate notoriety will continue to grow, especially because it's a sure thing that barring the apocalypse books, movies, etc. will be made about this tragic event and so increasingly over time her story will grow as will the sources and relevance of her place in this aspect of history. Moreover, at least for the time being, people will want to learn more about these people and so deleting this will do a disservice to curious Wikipedia readers and researchers. --164.107.223.21717:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not a valid argument to keep the article. Yes, she was the first victim in the worst shooting to date. So, if in 2 years time, a shooting occurs where more people are murdered, is she still notable? The professors are notable because they have done things beyond just the shooting, and have specific stories that are being told of heroism. She, on the other hand, was merely the first victim, and that is it. If more details emerge (such as, she tried to stop him, or something), then an article MAY be worth creating, but for now, it just isn't. It is tragic, and I am still sickened by the events of that day, but emotion cannot get in the way of making these kinds of decisions. -- Ubergenius19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this article (which has also been nominated for deletion)? These AfDs are putting the editors of the original VT massacre article into a cruel predicament where they spin off daughter articles as the main article continues to grow and grow and grow but each of those daughter articles are themselves nominated for deletion. Meanwhile, others (rightfully) complain that the original article is was too long and contents should be moved out into daughter articles. Not only does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing, they're actively working against one another. :) --ElKevbo23:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE. Not notable enough and never will be now that shes dead.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portillo (talk • contribs).
While I agree on the Delete due to non-notability, your comment was unduly harsh and cold. Have some respect for the deceased, please. Pat Payne18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although this is truely one of the most tragic school related incidents, Wikipedia is not an obituary. There have been many victims of shootings, but we do not create articles for every single person. She shouldn't have priority over the 31 other victims killed. Zodiiak18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She might not have been notable in life, but she might turn out to be the first victim in the worst shooting incident in US history; I say keep until it is proven that her death in the dorm and the massacre in Norman Hall were unrelated incidents. AreJay18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, even if they are related, did he kill her for a particular reason, or was she randomly chosen. Only if there was an explicit reason to choose her, would she qualify in my mind as notable above every other student. -- Zanimum18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now -- strictly speaking, ample coverage satisfies WP:BIO. Merge in a few weeks, once this fleeting press attention fades. (Yes, I'm sure that trounces on some guideline, but that's why they are only guidelines; each circumstance presents its own particulars.) Xoloz18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely notable obituaries are not encyclopedic. Being murdered may make one a temporary celebrity, but not notable; it is unfortunately all to common of an event. - BierHerr18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the main article. First victim of attack is the only notability of the individual. All information in this page is covered in the main page. ↔NMajdan•talk18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notable (in wiki context) thing about her is her victim status in the massacre. As such, any pertinent info about her will be related to the massacre, so it belongs in the massacre article. VanishingUser19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per some of the above comments (re:Notability and Memorial) I have rewritten the article/ restructured it. The article is just as notable as Rachel Scott and Cassie Bernall- victims of Columbine, and should be kept if those are to be. The article merely needs expanding, not deleting. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Jeff Silvers' comment above. Copy it to a subpage in your userspace and recreate if and when Emily has a book written about her or some other notable legacy. I am usually a strong inclusionist but this is clear recentism. Wl21919:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those two victims became notable in their own right well after the slayings took place. If Hilscher becomes the inspiration for books and organizations as Scott and Bernall did, then we can write an article about her. For now, however, the article should be deleted. See WP:CRYSTAL.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the relevant info here seems to be covered elsewhere; as for personal notability, there doesn't seem to be any at this point (see also my comment at top). MisfitToys20:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With must respect to Emily and her family, not notable enough and not suitable as an encyclopedia article. Jgw21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; prayers and thoughts for her family and friends are appropriate but not an encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know if this has been brought up already (I don't have time to go through all the votes and reasonings), but if you keep this article, then you should also allow articles on the other 26 students who were killed. From what I've seen, Wikipedia generally doesn't keep articles on individual shooting victims unless they have done something noteworthy beforehand or have garnered media attention after the fact, such as Cassie Bernall. Based on that, I would probably vote for this page's deletion... if I were to vote. Which I'm not. Just pointing something out. --From Andoria with Love22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Until further information comes to light. With it being so early in the investigation, we may not yet know her significance in this event. Neumayertc22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Textbook for exactly what is wrong with wikipedia. Subject is notable only because she was killed. Should we make a page for every victim of every crime committed everyday in America? My car was keyed last night, i'm going to make a page about myself being the first victim of the mysterious "Car Keyer" Batman200522:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is not acceptable and, as above, Wikipedia is not a memorial page. Tragic, but not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.Grumpman23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many more "Deletes" need to be recorded before this article actually gets deleted and/or merged? It looks to be pretty overwhelmingly "Delete" here. Bluefield22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "delete and merge" is an illegal operation under the GFDL, we are required to maintain a list of the contributers for any material covered by it. This should probably be a "merge and redirect" instead. Bryan Derksen00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is sufficient information for Wikipedia purposes on the massacre main page, in the victim list, & in the article on Cho. Furthermore some of the info on this article is unverified rumor & speculation: there is no known connection between Hilscher & Cho prior to his murder of her. (See article on Cho). --Yksin
Not notable? Uh, have you been exposed to any major media outlet in the past week or so? She's probably far more notable than many topics you have written about or edited on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete.You have got to be kidding me. Isn't this girls family going through enough grief without needing a stupid wikipedia page about this poor girl?Smooth070701:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete We don't know enough yet (and may never know) whether she was just an unfortunate target of opportunity or was purposely targeted as a specific individual. If the latter, then she'd warrant an article if sufficient verifiable information about that fact could be obtained. Both the creation of the article and the nomination for deletion were done too quickly. CaerwineCaer’s whines01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no original info on this page. It is entirely peripheral to the VT massacre page, therefore has no reason to exist seperately. rock4arolla01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hilscher was the first victim in the biggest school shooting in the history of the United States. There might not be much information about her right now but as investigators uncover more information there might be something to add. There are many stub articles on Wikipedia that are as short or shorter than this one and they are not being deleted. Hilscher is significant to the Virginia Tech massacure and there should be an article on her. In response to Smooth0707, if her family did want the page deleted than it should be deleted. But the truth is that Wikipedia articles are probobly the last thing on their mind right now and they could probobly care less. Thats my two cents.--From-cary02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not necessarily appropriate to create articles on victims of school shootings. If then you would have to add articles of all Columbine, Montreal Polytechnic, etc, etc. --JForget02:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You wouldnt have to. Articles also appear because epople want them to, wikipedia is not a coercive force on anyone to make any edit, SqueakBox02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per everyone above! Why are we discussing this? Instead of whining about the existence of this article, people should develop this article into a good one. Chris02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. without need for any emotionality or denial. Two independent sources primarily about her already, probably more by tomorrow. Furthermore she is notable individually as being killed separately at the start, and can reasonably be assumed to have had a different role in the insanity than most of the other victims. The article will grow. Many of the comments amount to WPIGNORESTHEOBVIOUSLYNOTABLE, because it can always add it later. . DGG
Delete Her only notability is being killed first (or second) by a spree killer. The way I see it all the victims of all spree shootings deserve a stub just for being killed, or none do. Anynobody04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at least. Not notable. A redirect or a merger may make sense. an individual article is destined to be a pointless stub, short of any new revelations. El hombrede haha04:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE, what importance does she have other than her (awful) death? Would she herself be remembered 400 years from now or only as a side-note on the whole tragedy? HornandsoccerTalk04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject was initially considered to be at the heart of the matter. This has since been disproven, but that doesn't change the fact that her name was all over everywhere until it was. The media coverage of the conjecture, combined with her being the first victim, combined with the general unusualness (sad that there's a 'usual' kind of massacre) of the separated shootings seems notable to me. 24.69.163.105:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. We decided years ago not to have articles on victims of murders, we don't have articles on the people killed in the 9/11 attacks, the columbine attacks, etc. --Xyzzyplugh05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and WP:MEMORIAL. If kept, provide pages for every 9/11 victim. --218.219.212.47
Strong Merge This is, mind you, a pretty big deal. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial. If people wish to put a small amount of information about the victims under the Virginia Tech Massacre, I feel it's fine. Unless something real notable comes up about Ms. Hilscher in the future, there is no need to have a separate page for her (much less an anemic stub). Radio-x06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge : She's not too notable a person, apparently, and if all the article is going to become is a footnote about a person killed by another person related to another article referencing a recent event (wow what a run-on sentence), we should just merge it with the main article Piepants08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Piepants[reply]
Delete, not notable outside of the manner of her death, WP:NOT a memorial, rumors of association with killer found to be false. No reason to have a separate article. ♠PMC♠10:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's interesting that the killers are almost always given their own article but rarely the victims. Go watch Phone Booth and you'll know what I mean. Regardless, she's the first victim and possibly even the catalyst of the bloodiest US school massacre in like, forever? Yeah, definitely strong keep. (Djungelurban12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge At the moment nowhere near notable enough for her own page. If she becomes so (due to future developments in the case), then this information will still be in the article history for editors to work from.--Jackyd10112:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A quick run through of the !votes came up with the following: 23 keep, 22 merge including merge & delete, and 74 delete including redirects. Is it about time to call this one WP:SNOW?
Comment. I'll second that motion myself. It's obvious that there is some consensus here.
Strong Delete, victims of other school massacres don't have their own entries. Unless they started a Emily fund or something significant (like Rachel Scott), this is not a keep. --207.7.222.22713:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been said many times, the article doesn't meet the criteia (I hate the term "she fails to meet" as it implies some fault on her part). The article itself is basically a stub and the info is already presented in at least two articles already. This article is basically a memorial, which is not encyclopedic. Liviu Librescu, for example, has a large amount that is written about his life and it concludes with the nature of his death. All Emily's article does is tell the world she was gunned down by a psycho. Onikage72513:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for all of the overhwelming keep reasons given. Her name will have a place in history and is relevant; it's the FIRST victim of the worst school shooting in U.S. history, not the 13th or something. The bloodbath begins with her and that is notable. As films and stuff are made, this will be expanded with who played her what books were written about her, etc. So deletionism in this case is way too premature. --172.130.214.14316:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People die violently every day. The truth in these words is tragic I know, but in a month at most everyone will forget about her completely. Truth of the matter is that while events are remembered, names are not. She did not do anything notable. She just happened to be the first victim. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So how is listing her any different than listing the first American soldier killed in the Gulf War and similar (yeah, it exists). Articles for those people are often HUGE, fileld of completely meaningless information. But apparently that's OK.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a justification. If an article is not in line with wikipedia policy, the existence of similar articles does not justify it. Come to think of it that article will probably go up for AFD now as well. I might nominate it later if I have time. When a 6 year old hits someone, and uses "he did it too" as a justification, does it fly? No. Shouldn't with mature Wiki editors either.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delee Completely non-notable, especially since it appears now that there is no relation between her and the shooter. Even if there will be a 'related motive' later on, I highly doubt it will be anything that revolves around her enough to warrant a complete biography on her life - it's more appropriate as a section of the main shooting article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tejastheory (talk • contribs).
STRONG KEEP, because there is still more information being released daily and she may have significance of being the first victim and perhaps first targetted victim. People WILL want to read up on her, especially in the immediate future. Don't jump the deltion gun! Cheers! --172.162.46.7021:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and what about all of the victims of September 11th, should we have a seperate page for each one of them as well. The only thing that makes this girl noteable is that she was a victim. We created a special section for individual articles after September 11th, perhaps we should consider the same in this instance. Stubbleboy22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news media is spiraling her notability from being a victim in the nation's worst shooting spree to perhaps even greater importance. Her picture has been the main image on CNN.com all day. I do agree that Wikipedia articles should not be a memorial for the victims, as it is of course an encyclopedia. It seems that many of those voting to keep are doing so purely out of sympathy for Emily Hilscher. It also seems apparent that deleting this article is a very hasty action, and if the article is deleted, it seems more than likely that it will be reestablished in the near future as Emily Hilscher's notability rises. -- AJ2422:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But what exactly are these "headlines" reporting? Nothing notable, they're nothing more than memorials/obituaries about their lives. The CNN headline (reported by AJ24) is simply a picture, and they have the same memorial/obituaries for ALL victims of the shooting. If notability comes from being the first victim of the shooting then fine, the only notable information about her is "Emily Hilscher - first shooting victim" which can be accomplished in a single line on the main Virginia Tech Shooting page. What else about her, including anything "reported" in these "news headlines" is notable? Tejastheory23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Keep / Merge At the risk of treading into WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS territory, I think it's important to note that victims of many less notable violent crimes are well-represented on Wikipedia, many of whose articles have withstood AfD debates, even if books haven't been written about them. Paul Bernardo's victims, Laci Peterson, and every once of Jack the Ripper's victims. Sure, their names have popped up in plenty of books, but are they notable on their own? That seems to be the question. By the most literal interpretation of Wikipedia's standards, (i.e., "multiple, non-trivial sources") it would appear that they are. This is an open debate, not your own personal torch to carry. It is very likely that this young lady's name will appear alongside the names of all the other victims in countless books to come, and that is the sole reason why I am voting the way I am. It has nothing to do with memorializing, and shame on anyone who would presume that to be the only motive behind a vote to keep or merge. It has only to do with an accurate reflection of history, and an interest in being thorough. TrevorPearce00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's all well and good, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't keep an article that fails to meet any criteria and is basically a stub representing information that is currently stated on other more appropriate articles simply because she might hypotehtically end up mentioned in other media in the future. If such occurs (and that very well may be the case) then an article can and should be written. As it stands right now, the article does not stand up to scrutiny. Onikage72501:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: "Delete" is such a harsh word and is messing w/ people emotions/reactions to the "deletion". No disrespect, but the girl isn't notable for an article without other content that is (a) unrelated to the massacre; and (b) of interesting encyclopedic value. The majority of the content at present (with the exception of the first paragraph) is about the VT massacre, therefore this qualifies as a redirect back to that article and explained there. The article at present is proving this. +mwtoews01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but if people do not understand what delete means in this situation then they should not be casting opinion. The point of these pages is to discuss policy... if people do no know policy i see no reason for them to be discussing it. Delete is also exactly what should happen. A merger implies content is kept solid... i.e. it gets its own section in the main article. In this case this murder deserves a single line, she was not notable before she died, there is no reason to make her notable now. -- Jimmi Hugh01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She deserves her own page as do all the victims of this tradgedy, maybe you should consider deleting mr chos page perhaps.
Ok deal... i will create a page full of information for each of these people... if you create a page for every single Iraqui Murdered in, lets say, the last year alone! -- Jimmi Hugh02:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Frankly, if there's going to be a page for someone like Cho, there should be a page for each of his victims. Cho wanted to live on forever, much like the killers of Columbine. Either keep Emily's page and don't make him as special as the people he killed, or delete his too. Don't let him be notorious like he wanted to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.185.150 (talk • contribs).
Comment Your argument is entirely invalid. You're basically saying she deserves an article so Cho doesn't "win," but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. For better or worse, Cho is noteworthy enough for his own article, but Hilscher isn't, at least not by Wikipedia's standards. If we create an article for Hilscher just based on the fact that her murderer has one, too, we have to create an article for every victim of a spree or serial killer, and that's ridiculous. I'd also like to point out that this anonymous IP's only wiki contribution has been to vote in this AfD. Jeff Silvers04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There Jeff goes again with the ad hominem attacks. When someone must resort to that, you know their arguments are weak - especially those that consist of "Your argument is entirely invalid" (universally recognized as a substitute for substance). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Why not merge into a Victims of Virginia Tech Massacre article? Apart I don't think any victim short of that professor is noteworthy, but I believe they are as a group.
Strong Keep If Wikipedia is supposed to be a tool for compiling human knowledge in a more comprehensive and navigable fashion than was previously possile in other media, what is the point of eliminating this article? It's merely a link that people can follow for more information if they choose, and it's not costing us anything or diluting the quality of information available. Unless it's misleading or inaccurate, I really don't see how removing this entry does anyting besides reduce the total amount of information available to those who are interested in this subject. We don't need to play the role of information gatekeeper without a better reason than "people might consider this irrelevant eventually." Bradrules06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be setting the bar needlessly high; while this is information isn't central to the main story, it's certainly not useless. I tend to think that since Wikipedia isn't constrained by resources like print space or airtime, if something is borderline newsworthy, it's better to err on the side of being a little over-inclusive than under-inclusive. That's one of the main advantages that this format has over traditional media, and it's silly not to take advantage of it. There's a difference between this and some idiot who makes a page about his friend just because he thinks it'd be cool to see his name here. The mere fact that there's even this involved of a discussion about it has me convinced that this information is of interest to enough people that it's worth keeping.Bradrules19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm sorry for the loss, but people are obviously being too emotional right now to understand any of Wikipedia's policies. I also face deaths and losses, but I'm not compelled to keeping a memorial here; they don't deserve the treatment people are giving right now to the said victim. Let it go, people. Get on with your lives. 218.208.115.2507:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the people who need to "get on with their lives" are the ones who are so vehement about deleting this single page, when there are so many other pages on Wikipedia that are so blatantly less relevant than this one. If those people really cared about the principles they are so fired up about on this page, they'd be busy elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep - how can you justify deleting this article when Wikipedia is replete with articles on irrelevant people like Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda and thousands of fictional characters such as Lumpawarrump and Mallatobuck from the The Star Wars Holiday Special and innumerable Star Trek characters like Kodos the Executioner and Gorkon? With Wikipedia stuffed with articles such as those, how can anyone keep a straight face while arguing that this article about a real person who was murdered in one of the worst episodes of violence in American history doesn't belong on Wikipedia?
CommentJose Luis de Jesus Miranda is hardly "irrelevant." I can't vouch for the Star Wars characters because I'm not a follower of that series and therefore can't verify their relevance, but really, it seems like most people who are voting to keep are doing so with misguided, emotion-fueled motives--suggesting that Hilscher "deserves" an article because she died in a very tragic way. It's sad, but that doesn't mean we should write a Wikipedia article for her. Also, it's worth noting that the above anonymous IP user has a grand total of two edits as of this posting: the vote here and a comment at Talk: Emily J. Hilscher. Jeff Silvers19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem arguments are unnecessary and you have no idea how many edits that person has made. But you want to go down that road, fine; answer us this: Why would you or others be wasting so much time and energy taking a stand against this article instead of cleaning out all of the thousands of far less important, relevant, notable pages? Oh, and how is Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda relevant to anything? How is Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda relevant yet Emily Hilscher is not?
Just as a note, while Ad Hominem is discouraged on wikipedia, it's standard practice to point out editors with extremely low edit counts on AfDs, especially when their only edits are on the subject of the AfD. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Phoeba Wright mentioned, pointing out anonymous IPs whose only contributions have been to the AfD in question is standard Wikipedia procedure. I wasn't implying that you're an inadequate editor and that therefore your opinion doesn't matter; I was only pointing it out because (as implied by the tag at the top of the page) there appears to be a lot of activity in this AfD by people who ostensibly have no prior WP experience, which leads one to suspect they may've been lead to vote here. And as far as Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is concerned, being a religious (and, some say, cult) leader with numerous followers who believe him to be the reincarnation of Christ and a supposed ministry presence in twenty countries is far more notable than being the first of thirty-three people to die in a particular incident. Jeff Silvers07:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She deserves mention, but so do all the other victims. I think it should be similar to the 9/11 victims list.
Comment: I think the people arguing for "keep" really haven't critically thought this through, and are a bit hypocritical as the state of the article has not been significantly added to in the past day. All of the information I presently see in this article is repeated elsewhere, and rightfully belong in the main article(s). The primary focus of Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a scrap piece of internet where every tidbit needs to be repeated. I would be happy to switch my vote once the article has something of unique encyclopedic value that is independent of the massacre or not directly related (for example, if a scholarship was named after her as a result). It is much more informative for readers to have the present content in context of the main article(s); not as a small independent article. And if you really really do want to keep, please justify why it is valid to repeat information out of context from the main article! +mwtoews15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more notable than the other victims, none of whom need articles either. Wikipedia is not a memorial to those who have been massacred. Quatloo17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this information can easily be mentioned in an article of victims of VTS, but no separate article is needed. abach20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before she was killed, she was not the subject of multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Now she is, so she's notable. --Eastmain20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete While I sympathise that a lot of the people who have commented on this page have had strong emotional reactions to recent events (I do not exclude myself from that), there is no compelling reason to keep this page whatsoever.Parmesan21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: People are emotional and the facts are still coming in. Notability seems doubtful, but it's too soon to delete. Peter Grey01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an addendum to what I said earlier, I think a good reference point for this would be something like the Challenger disaster, which was similar in terms of public notoriety and also involved a sizeable number of deaths, but not so many that it's impractical to list them. The short bios about the people who died in that disaster seem to indicate a precedent that this kind of information is different from a "memorial" due to the importance of event that it's attached to. Bradrules02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But this is totally different than the Challenger disaster; everybody who died aboard the Challenger had something notable about them other than having died in the accident (whether it was accomplishments before the disaster or something posthumous). Emily Hilscher is not too much more notable right now than the other victims, and the only facts for which she stands out from them--that she was the first one killed and that the police initially suspected she had a relationship with Cho--could easily be mentioned in the Virginia Tech massacre article without cluttering it up at all. Since those two facts are the only facts that make her more notable than the others who died, there's no rationale for keeping this article. Jeff Silvers11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. She's not notable other than the fact that she was killed among 31 others. That's not important enough to warrent inclusion. Malamockq02:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Redirect an option? If not Delete. I understand that her death was notable, however it has been documented in the main article and this seems redundant.--JUDEtalk05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this anonymous IP has only one edit so far, and that's the aforementioned "vote." I think it's becoming obvious that people are being directed to come here and vote from a website or forum in order to shift the consensus. Jeff Silvers11:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get off your conspiracy theory high horse. Some of us read and use Wikipedia without doing much else with it. Just because this is something that interests people who usually do not get into this stuff doesn't mean you should devalue our opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
First of all, please be civil. Second, I point this out because it appears there have been a lot of anonymous IPs who are only voting in this AfD with ostensibly no prior experience here. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be able to edit Wikipedia without having to sign up, and I'm not trying to devalue people's opinions because they lack accounts, but it does seem like people are being led here simply to vote (and before you write my concerns off as a "conspiracy theory," take note that this is a pretty common problem with high-profile AfDs). Jeff Silvers15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- should be part of article, but doesn't stand on it's own -- it's a detail of the main article, incidental to the main story. WP:BIO notes that incidental material does not qualify for an article. Pablosecca08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hapy to consider keeing it while everyone thought she might be the shooter's girlfriend, but she didn't even know him, so her article should be deleted. Anyway there are a lot of people who want to keep the "List of victoms" article. I can't really imagine what else it'll say asaide from the order in which they died. So deleting this article makes a stronger case for keeping the list of victims article. JeffBurdges11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - she was the first victim so was notable for being involved in the beginning of this whole incident. I notice the first victim of Columbine has their own article and according to what I've heard there were less people killed or wounded there. Whatever about her not having her own article, couldn't all the victims be merged together on one page at least? --DevelopedMadness18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As has been stated before (though I don't blame you for not having read it since this is a huge AfD), two of the Columbine victims have their own articles because they became particularly notable beyond just having died in a school shooting; one inspired a nationwide campaign, and the other was (erroneously) associated with an exchange with one of the shooters that became famous after the event (not to mention having had a book written about her). Jeff Silvers18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment On Fox News earlier today (around 2 PM Eastern Time), the reporter mentioned that police are looking into evidence that Cho may have emailed her warning of the attack and the police want to review his AND HER internet records. So, her noteworthiness in this fiasco may be increasing as I type and I think people should probably hold off on deleting until everything plays out as she can wind up being prominent not just as the first victim in the worst school shooting in American history, but also because of possible connections with the murderer or even having potentially been warned, but if nothing else, the police are looking into her as news whereas I don't recall hearing anything similar about other victims. I hope that helps. --24.154.173.24319:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for at least a while
It's not like if we don't delete this article the world will end! Keep it! Or merge it into an article called "List of Viginia Tech Massacre Victims" or something like that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghadden (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Conversely, if the article is deleted, but more details warranting an article are discovered, then the page can simply be restored. –Gunslinger4720:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - when ficticious characters warrant lengthy articles, the human victims of an historic tragedy deserve their biography posted on wikipedia.Thomashartbenton20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We only have articles on noteable ficticious characters. Ficticious characters who are not notable are not kept. It is the same thing here Nil Einne23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for a while,then delete i believe that it is alittle too soon to worry about this.i think we should just let it stay for a few months or so.i think its disrespectful to delete her page so soon after she died,y'know?The Pink Panther21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a matter of being respectful... Also, the same argument could be applied to most people who die. Does this mean we should keep an article for a few months for them all if someone writes one? Nil Einne23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - before her death she was no more notable than I am, and her death only makes her worthy of note on the main page or, if the Victims page be notable, worthy of mention thereon. Nyttend 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I just realised that I already expressed my opinion up above Nyttend22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page and merge its contents into List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, or (if that fails its own AFD test), Virginia Tech massacre. Yes, her death was tragic and deserves a memorial, but Wikipedia is not the place for that; and there appears to be nothing particularly notable about her over any of the other victims. If, by the time this AFD is up, no actual, useful information has been found to add to this page (currently, it says virtually nothing), it should be deleted. Terraxos22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not noteable. Being killed by a noteable person or in a noteable event does not implicitly make you noteable. Nil Einne23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New information on laptop and phone may lead to information about why she was targeted; keep as information comes in. Ferrett300:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained several times Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't keep an article simply because a person may become noteable in the future. If the story develops and she is notable for rather reason, we can recreated or undelete the article. This is the way things are supposed to work. Nil Einne13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It's an electronic encyclopedia that can be revised at any time. Keep it for now, see what develops and delete it at a later date. It's not like the site will run out of storage. Pgrote01:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained several times Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't keep an article simply because a person may become noteable in the future. If the story develops and she is notable for rather reason, we can recreated or undelete the article. This is the way things are supposed to work. Nil Einne13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, her notability has not been sufficiently established. The article may be recreated if "information comes in". —ptk✰fgs04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 2 RS newspaper articles on her now to meet the present technical requirements for N. (& there will be more, since both the Washington Post & the NY Times are doing a feature article on each one of them. -- these papers think that each individual victim is appropriate for an article. So will other papers, which will provide many more than the necessary two sources. There is obviously no real consensus about whether 2 RS are all that is needed for N, regardless of the subject. The rules seem to say so, some people seem to think so, many of the people here do not agree. If delete in a case like this really is the consensus it may simplify some of the N discussions now going on, because this seems to be clearly saying that being the subject of independent feature articles in 2 major newspapers is not always enough for N. This unmistakably indicates we cannot combine the rules, and that we now mean articles must have 2 independent RS and also meet some additional notability criterion, whatever that may be. That's what the delete opinions above are saying. I don't say this is wrong, but I do wonder if this is proposed as a general rule for WP. DGG04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For all of those saying "being the first death in the massacre is not a big deal: why is there a page on Xavier Mertz, the first person to die of an overdose of Vitamin A? In addition, many good points are made above, especially the one about people flocking here to veto this article about a real and newsworthy person and how those same people apparently have no interest in the same sort of content control when it comes to some really flaky and fruity fictional characters who have pages all over Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The Xavier Mertz article asserts his notability because he is "principally famous for his adventures in the Antarctic". Death by Vitamin C is just a plus. –Gunslinger4707:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HOW LONG MUST THIS GO ON... THE OBVIOUS CONSENSUS HERE IS TO DELETE THIS NON-NOTABLE PAGE...WHY MUST WE KEEP REHASHING THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Batman200510:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing obvious is that you're out of your mind, there are nearly DOUBLE the amount of deletes than keeps, and the majority of the keeps cite the fact that there is other crap that is non-notable on wikipedia, so why not add more.Batman200521:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close secondedEnough already with this runaround. Close the deletion debate and chose the victor already. --
Comment - Subject has fully met the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Thus, it would be a violation of WP policy to delete this article. Editors wishing to have a different policy with respect to subjects such as this need to seek a change to WP policy first before trying to apply such a policy change to an AfD. -AVB 272316:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This is obviously a special exception, so no need to policy wonk the debate. Don't forget, Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rockstar (T/C) 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; she's not notable at all. How is she notable? She didn't do anything meaningful and didn't even die meaningfully; she is, was, and forever will be no one, because she didn't do anything notable. Being killed in a shooting is NOT grounds for a Wikipedia article. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a memorial, as per its relevant policies. Titanium Dragon23:53, 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.
Delete non-notable to the world-at-large, although "1997 witnessed the group bagging the most coveted title, the champion of the competition" and "it has become a respected institute in the art of chorale performance." are assertions of notability, just not outside the university. —Resurgent insurgent2007-04-18 16:58Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Somebody's idea of a joke. The article basically lists the England rugby union squad plus two people I've never heard of. This is not a real team GordyB13:35, 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.
So here is the second part of a collection of unnecessary lists. We have one huge list and also individual articles for all Pokemon species. So this list is a pure duplication. Also, it cannot give all the details that the Pokemon articles give. As the creation of such a list is against Wikipedia's policies, I think it should be deleted. Vikrant Phadkay13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The subject of this AfD is NOT redundant to the individual articles, as it is a work in progress by nine different editors to merge non-notable Pokémon, a fact which the nominator was well aware of. - A Link to the Past(talk)23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? The list isn't including non-notable Pokemon in any way or for any reason. It aims at including all Pokemon which is an irrational thought. If anyone thinks I am trying to illustrate a point through all this, then by that logic we just can go about claiming every deletion request to be a personal crossfire. And I can also make a claim that all those heroes in favour of merging Pokemon articles are illustrating their point by creating this article! Vikrant Phadkay14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- The specific Pokemon articles will only exist while the list is being created. Once that is done most Pokemon will most likely become redirects. Also, the nominator appears to be doing this to get rid of an idea he is not fond of. Funpika14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a reflection of any idea. The articles are too important and notable to be merged. And we already have a list(why not edit that?). Number 1 to 20, 20 to 40 it is all a "Sock-puppetry of Articles". I have some more suggestions: Merge Ash, Misty and Brock with Pokemon anime! And then merge anime, games, and manga with Pokemon. The time spent on creating such lists will surely be several years more than that spent on completing individual articles! Why did'nt anyone think of this before making the lists? Vikrant Phadkay14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the "idea" of a mega-merge of most Pokemon species articles on Wikipedia. And are all Pokemon major characters in the series? Is whismer as important as Pikachu? A lot are probably minor characters. Funpika15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mega-merge? Probably minor?" Doubtful reasons are no reasons for making articles. And yes, we can surely go about making bold claims of varying notability: Is Arthur Miller as important as Marylin Monroe? Is the London Eye as important as the Big Ben? So go and fanatically merge all of them! Vikrant Phadkay14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly as good as the big list and the individual articles. The merging idea has been suggested before, but never was there anything resembling consensus for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Pokemon franchise is notable enough that it is appropriate to have a list with the basic details of each of the 493 characters. But there should not be individual articles for any which do not satisfy WP:A and WP:N by having multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of the individual character. Perhaps we can eventually get rid of the "Pokemon test argument" in which we are chastised for wanting to keep an article about a real-world thing or person on the grounds that if we have 493 articles about non-notable Pokemon characters, what is the harm of keeping an article about one more professor, school, library, musical group, or church. Edison15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neutral on the question of the actual merge, but I strongly doubt that AfD is the appropriate venue to discuss an in-progress reorganization. JavaTenor17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article wasn't designed to make your life miserable. The lists have been discussed on WT:PCP. You got mad because more people were working on the lists and not on the WP:PCP focus article. You also appear to be unhappy since the articles you contributed to and like are going to be merged together. I am starting to become suspicious of a WP:OWN violation. Funpika15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't intended to replicate List of Pokémon, nor is it intended to duplicate the information (permanently, that is) covered in the individual species articles; it's a work-in-progress of merging the essential information of the species articles into fewer pages, after which the species articles will most likely be redirected (and thus the information won't be needlessly duplicated on more than one page). – mcy1008 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' I said it before, and I'll say it again. Merging will be terrible because each article would get "Too long article" tag. Though I agree that this isn't the right place to come with solution. TheBlazikenMaster13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep after viewing Erik's work, it isn't as bad idea as I thought.[reply]
Yes the "too long" tag will surely come. Or possibly this list won't give all the facts that individual articles do. So here is another good reason why this article is unnecessary. Vikrant Phadkay14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On closer investigation, I suppose that could be interpreted as a personal attack, implying that TPE (or at least his current opinion) is a manifestation of laziness... But I think it's possible that wasn't meant as a PA on his part, more like general frustration with what appeared to him as laziness among Wikipedians in general (which could be the truth as far as we know... ulp!). Let's not turn this into a flame war, folks. Erik Jensen(Appreciate|Laugh At)19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All i meant was that alot of people have been questioning why every individual pokemon needs an article and I view this as a viable alternative. The Placebo Effect19:26, 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.
Keep - The Wiktionary article has a less informative definition and I think that there is potential for expansion beyond a straightforward definition because the word is culturally significant. My view is that in cases of doubt, it is better to keep it especially since there are links to it (eg from Wallace and Gromit). Man with two legs14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say it wasn't widely used? No. I said Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, if you look at the entries for both nigger and totty there are differences. First, of all, the nigger article is sourced properly. It is also substantially longer than the totty article. The nigger article contains information on etymology and history that you could not find in a dictionary. The totty article looks like a dictionary entry. The nigger article has pictures that illustrate its usage, it also tracks how the word has been used over time. The totty article does neither of those. As you can see, there are many differences. Don't try to compare articles that are completely different in form. Also, it doesn't do any good to comment after every delete vote. You're not gaining any points by trying to discredit everyone that disagrees with you. And if the term is as widely used as you say, then show me. Put some sources or links in the article that back up your claims. --CyrusAndiron12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was answering your statement no sources to verify that the term is even used. See Wallace_&_Gromit:_The_Curse_of_the_Were-Rabbit for an example of its use which is culturally topical and which may or may not cause the word to change its useage.
Your other points regarding the article are covered by the fact that this article is a stub.
Delete; this is a term, not a subject. The article can be as long as you want, it will still be a description of a term. Tizio15:20, 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.
Indiscriminate list in violation of WP:NOT, just a list of the faculty at an otherwise non-notable middle school. I'm sure they're very nice people, but especially as there is no evidence that any could sustain notability individually, there's no reason to assume they can do so collectively. RGTraynor 14:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete massively unencyclopedic, and including teacher's personal email addresses is a magnet for all kinds of trouble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind15:55, 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.
Delete As per above. Was going to tag it speedy, before my NPOV tag but thought it was skating a line.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The title should say it all: unsourced list of randomized trivia facts from variety of media outlets. Because Wikipedia is not a discriminate collection of information, I nominate this for deletion. I know it's kinda funny, so I advise you to read WP:ILIKEIT. Renata14:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as beyond unencylopedic and utterly pointless. The idea of having this article is funny; the actual article just shows that some people have entirely too much time on their hands. Daniel Case16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list does not appear indiscriminate to me. Rather, it seems very well-defined: media featuring brains in jars. WP:NOT#IINFO says nothing about such (i.e. clearly defined) lists, at least by my reading. Also, these are not unsourced. The source is given in every item: it says what film, tv show, or novel (etc.) the "brain in a jar" occurs. I'm willing to change my mind, as I'm learning here (I've not been involved in many AfDs), but this is how it strikes me at the moment. Also, I can think of numerous points to this list (i.e., it is not pointless), and I think Mr. Case's claim about time on people's hands seems akin to an "I don't like it" argument, which is not valid in AfD, yes? Cheers, Doctormatt17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the greater point of having this? Back in the day, this was the sort of thing that made the now-defunct Useless WWW Pages and Mirsky's Worst of the Web. My argument was not that "I don't like it", it's akin to saying the entire list is essentially a trivia section. What's next? "Media featuring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches"? Just because someone thinks this sort of thing is cool and otherwise follows Wikipedia procedure does not automatically make the subject of the article Wikipedia-worthy. If you're going to accuse me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would say that your argument for keeping boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Daniel Case17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided. Unlike trivia sections, trivia articles are not especially useful as repositories of information to be integrated elsewhere.
Delete. You may be right in saying that the inclusion criteria are fairly well defined and thus this really isn't a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO, but scroll up to the previous section - WP:NOT#DIR. This is clearly a list of loosely related topics, and having little to nothing in common other than featuring a brain-in-a-jar at some point is not a defining characteristic of these media. Arkyan • (talk)18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes more sense to me. How do folks feel about Leprechauns_in_popular_culture? This is a list of things that have little in common besides having a leprechaun (or leprechaun) reference. Not that consistency is really a human trait, but would these AfD criteria apply equally well to that article? There are tons of other "in popular culture" articles that seem (to me) at least as trivial, and more indiscrimate than this article. Doctormatt20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the issue of "Whatever in popular culture" type articles is a hot-button topic here on AfD lately, and if you scroll through some of the recent archives you're bound to find quite a few of them. There is a decently sized essay on the topic at WP:IPC if you want to take a peek at that, but if you are interested in my personal opinion, those types of articles are warranted if they contain sources to explain why the topic is important in popular culture/media/etc, rather than just being a list of appearances. Just my two cents, of course! Arkyan • (talk)20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I created this article to break it off from the brain in a vat article, which MANY people seemed to erroneously think was a repository for "media featuring brains in jars". The size of the list at the time made it clear that Wikipedia editors wanted a list of "media featuring brains in jars", although they were creating that list in the wrong place. I do not have an opinion one way or the other on whether this article should be kept, but I fear that if it is deleted that people will go back to adding lists of "media featuring brains in jars" to the brain in a vat article. Luvcraft22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments outline in WP:TRIVIA. This is an unreferenced, unencyclopedic list which has no real encyclopedic merit. If people want to keep an indiscriminate list of appearances of brain in jars, they can do it elsewhere. --Haemo23:12, 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.
This list is almost impossible to verify. There are no sources listed that could back up any of the content on the page. It has been tagged for cleanup and sources since September of 2006. In that time, no sources have been provided for any of the characters and the list has grown longer. I am proposing that it be deleted because it does not adhere to the policies set down in WP:LIST. CyrusAndiron14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unmaintainable. Most of the characters of fiction set in a Catholic country are catholic, so that list would be enormous. Tizio15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each entry on the list is easily verifiable because presumably all you have to do is go to the book that the character is in. However, per Tizio, it is potentially a very long list with no criteria to determine which entries are encyclopedic and which are not. This makes it unmaintainable listcruft. --Richard05:16, 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 Keep - no consensus for deletion. The arguments that have been presented in favour of keeping the article are reasonable. - Richard Cavell15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed as a PROD for self-promotion and non-notability. However, has been featured on several episodes of a public broadcasting show and mentioned several times in the local paper, including [34] a mid-length article just about the troupe. Has a few mentions in the 2 biggest papers in Kentucky [35] but nothing else that I can find. It's not a whole lot, but really how much coverage do you expect a troupe of puppeteers to get? I admit the article is pretty light, it's not a serious review or history or anything. I just didn't feel PROD was best... a bit more discussion is needed. Mark me down as neutral for now. --W.marsh15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be a speedy based on the actual article content, but the links above probably push it just out of speedy territory, if not by much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes them notable? I just don't see it. It comes off to me as a group trying to build itself up in the marketplace (including getting a newspaper to do a little fluff write-up), and using the Wikipedia as one piece of their marketing. I wish them well, but they don't deserve an encyclopedia article. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before characterizing this article as nothing more than “a group trying to build itself up in the marketplace”, you might take note that: “Squallis Puppeteers is a community based non-profit organization dedicated to performing innovative theater” link. I'm still forming my opinion, but it seems to me the non-profit/community based nature of this group should play into our decision. Fixer123416:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is non-profit doesn't mean it isn't spam/self-promotion. My blog is 100% non-profit, but I wouldn't in a million years write a wikipedia article on it, and if I did I'd expect it to be deleted just as if it was a for-profit business of equivalent notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this wasn't created by a drive-by editor but someone who's editted other topics [36] is the strongest evidence to me that this isn't automatically spam. --W.marsh18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I've written features articles about the Squallis Puppeteers for a college newspaper, but I'm not a member of the Squallis Puppeteers nor have I worked for them. It's a regularly performing group, well known in Louisville. The article is still pretty light right now but it does have an original photo from Ben Chroneos (also not a member). (I'd post more but I'm heading out the door -- more tomorrow perhaps). Jordansc21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if anyone can come up with anything that would suggest that the group is notable, then I would not have to assume that the Wikipedia is being used for its promotion. That they are a community-based non-profit doesn't make them notable, nor that they are an arts group. Newspaper articles are written about all sorts of non-notable subjects all the time. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper articles are written about non-notable subjects, but we're talking about an organization - not a mugging. "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." <-This criteria has been fulfilled. The newspaper articles & KET segment are multiple, non-trivial, published, reliable, and independent. They are spread out over years and cover several different events and aspects of the organization: this isn't the result of a media blitz. And, really, who else is going to cover a Louisville-based puppet group? Jordansc14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Though they also do children's shows, they're Louisville's only adult puppet group. (2) They've been around 10 years. (3) They're popular (as evidenced by LEO's Reader's Choice). (4) They've performed a number of shows at major venues (The Boxer at Kentucky Theater, Trash at the MeX). (4) They're very active (as evidenced by the sheer number of references to them in LEO's calendars and elsewhere). (5) They're an established non-profit organization (as opposed to a group of amateurs who get together on weekends and make puppets). Jordansc14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede that that they've "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject," then you've conceded that they are notable by Wiki standards. I don't need to give any further facts to prove that they're notable beyond pointing to articles written on them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:non-notable#Notability_is_not_subjective copied below. And, given that I'm not a member of Squallis Puppeteers nor have I ever been affiliated with them, the self-promotion claim has also been addressed. I think both reasons given for deletion have been sufficiently answered. Jordansc16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Puppeteers have any regional or national recognition, via news articles? That would be objective. I really can't get over how I've never heard of them, and I was born and raised here. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only national coverage is the review in The Puppetry Journal. Everything else is local or perhaps regional: LEO is definitely local; The Courier Journal and KET are viewed statewide but the events covered were Louisville-based. Jordansc21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Squallis Puppeteers appear to be well-known in Louisville, Kentucky. They apeared in various articles in the Courier-Jounrnal (link) and the Louisville Cardinal. The Cardinal has done a feature story on them. At least 4 mentions of them have been printed in these papers within the last month. They have been reviewed by The Puppetry Journal, which is the official magazine of The Puppeteers of America, Inc.. Regional groups such as this--that are well-known and active in cites of 600,000 people--are notable. Fixer123405:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived in Louisville most of my life. Never heard of them. I'm not saying they aren't worthy to go see, but that this group is totally new on me. Mentions in a few articles doesn't make a group "well-known", only slightly "well-reported", like so many things that are well-reported, but not notable. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notability is not subjective: "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:non-notable#Notability_is_not_subjectiveJordansc14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know if my vote counts since I created the page, but I think it's pretty evident that the Squallis Puppeteers are notable. They were #2 in the Louisville Eccentric Observer's reader's choice awards for performing groups[37]. The LEO (Louisville's alternative weekly) has mentioned them at least 28 times. They've been around since 1997. They're an actual non-profit organization with funding and sponsors - not just a group of amateurs. They have their own workshop. They draw crowds of 100+ people. We have a number of significant, independent sources covering them - the Courier Journal, Louisville Eccentric Observer, KET, etc. Unless Wikipedia is only dedicated to nationally known entities, this seems like all the notability one should need. Jordansc13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second place in a reader's choice award for a local paper isn't enough for notability. Multiple article mentions alone isn't enough for notability. There needs to be facts that make this group stand out enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I don't see enough here. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Reader's Choice Award wasn't the lynch pin of my argument. I included that only as supporting evidence. What would establish their notability for you? Jordansc14:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Their notability seems to be very, very isolated, and while I'm all for inclusion of organizations at the "cusp" of WP:NOTE, there really doesn't seem to be any notability beyond a few passing references, one student newspaper review, and a trade organization review. If they had attracted some significant regional attention, I would think differently, but I think their notability, such as it is, is far too narrow for inclusion right now. Lemonsawdust02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found three more articles on Squallis Puppeteers in the Courier Journal's archives. They look like they deal primarily with the puppeteers and they're pretty substantial (one's 669 words). Unfortunately, they all have to be purchased. Jordansc23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a local group. But it is notable locally. Being as such you are only going to find them sourced in local media. M-BMor10:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Important puppeteer troupe for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. The only WP:RS information independent from and about Squallis Puppeteers is Louisville: The Crowning: A Story of Birth,Dialogue, February 28, 2001, Volume 24; Issue 1, Page 42, which is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. There are 10+ newspaper notifications about their up coming performances, which is not useful on Wikipedia. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have a hard time imagining how anyone can actually look at the newspaper articles Fixer has linked for us and still suggest deletion. They include genuine articles about the group, and not just notices of upcoming gigs. While I completely reject the quaint notion that non-profit groups should get a free pass through WP:V (somehow I can't find any mention in official policy about how Nice Groups are exempt), the fact is they pass on the merits. RGTraynor 13:36, 25 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.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "These tracks are songs that are speculated to be on this album by fans. In no way are these songs confirmed to be on the album"..... ARE YOU KIDDING ME? How about I just make up some forthcoming albums from my favorite artists and "guess" the song titles? No sources whatsoever. Should be deleted until a tracklist has been confirmed, at the very least. - eo15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unless someone has legit info on the actual track listing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Probably not worth an AfD, but it wasn't quite speedy material either, so I brought it here. Someone might also want to talk to Ramlysmail (talk·contribs) who, while he doesn't seem to have any bad faith in mind, does seem to be having a really hard time understanding wikipedia policy etc..--VectorPotentialTalk16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have said merge but there is nothing to merge since there is an already overly detailed listing of apparently every match ever played by the player listed at Nicol david. -- Whpq16:55, 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.
32 Ghits total for this trademarked term being promoted by two lifestyle consultants from Vancouver. 32 Ghits seem to include some possibly non-trivial coverage[38] but altogether I get the picture of a product whose creators are heavily promoting it (article creator has only made two edits, both to this article) and not yet generating a lot of notability outside Vancouver, much less Canada. Daniel Case16:26, 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.
Two line, unsourced stub about a non-notable middle school created nearly two years ago. There have been zero substantive edits, ever, and no sources added, ever. Survived two previous AfD nominations in May 2005 and October 2005, both times on the strength of the assertion that middle schools exist and all are notable. Unfortunately, this article fails, as it always has, WP:V, and with no improvement in two years shows no prospect of ever being improved.Withdrawing nomination; as Alansohn correctly cites, all issues raised have been addressed. It's a pity it took two years and three AfDs to accomplish it, but better late than never. Ravenswing 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article about the city. This kind of solution is becoming more common than the keep decisions of the past, if I'm reading trends correctly. Regarding the previous discussions, I cite WP:CCC. YechielMan19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm certainly comfy with a merge. And yes, it's nice to see that consensus is coming around to believe that school articles don't automatically get a unique exemption from WP:V. Ravenswing 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, combined with other unique programs and achievements documented using reliable and verifiable sources constitute a strong claim of notability. As I can see it, every one of the issues raised in the nomination has been addressed. It's amazing what can be done in 10-15 minutes to improve an article. Alansohn16:23, 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.
Weak delete. If kept, should be renamed "Coffee shops in Singapore" and should establish why they are different from coffee shops anywhere else in the world. This is part of university project - see top and bottom of this article. -- RHaworth10:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It reads like an essay. If anyone finds something useful in the article, they can add it to Coffeeshop and we can be done with this article. nadav23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic itself is actually encyclopedic, so the reason for deletion nomination is actually due more to WP:NOR than anything else. I would suggest incorporating the information into proper wikipedia articles, which in this case would be in Kopi tiam, before removing them completely.--Huaiwei15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then should it perhaps be renamedKopi tiam: Then and now - or perhaps merge-transplanted into Kopi tiam? The closest article we have in the English Wiki to Coffee Shop (regarding the coffee-centered breakfast cafe) is Coffeehouse or Café. The original title was at first misleading, and then seemingly restricted to a certain Far-East cultural reference, both of which indicate a need to rename or merge. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Important information about coffee shops for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic, particularly since the information is from one WP:RS and is not of the type for which other WP:RS would confirm or contribute to. Thus, the topic does cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee22:36, 24 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.
Original research. No reliable sources. Next to nothing is known about this theory, because it wasn't ever published! The article is an essay what it might has been. --Pjacobi17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the various test cases documented in WP:FRINGE, I think that the precedent for topics like this (a non-notable idea connected to a notable person) is to describe the fringe topic, briefly, within the person's article. A paragraph or so in Nikola Tesla should do the trick. Of course, that paragraph should report only what reliable sources have said about Tesla's "theory", not what people can extemporaneously ad-lib about it. Anville18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable fringe theory, but the article has been attacked since shortly after it's creation. In the least, redirect and keep available information. J. D. Redding02:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC) [ps., why push the POV Pjacobi? you been trying, IIRC, to delete this article for some time now ...][reply]
Keep: semi-notable fringe from a notable individual, too big a topic to condense into the 1-2 paragraphs that would be required for a merge. Could do with a clean up thought. - perfectblue14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering whether the Keep-voters have read the article. The theory's existence was announced in a press release, the theory itself was never published. How is one supposed to write an article about an unpublished theory? --Pjacobi20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I approve of doing a redirect, I do not think that WP:BOLLOCKS applies here. Tesla did announce this, and it did create a stir in the press. That the theory itself (if it existed) was bollocks is another issue. The issue is rather one of whether this supposed theory is notable enough to merit its own article, instead of only being mentioned in the Nikola Tesla article. As I indicated above, I do not see that it is. --EMS | Talk00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per perfectblue or merge. Yes, I read the article. Can't see why it should be deleted. Is historically interesting, and is exactly the sort of thing that should be kept in the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia. SmokeyJoe00:43, 25 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.
Cursecruft created by a sports broadcaster, not worthy of Wikipedia page. A whole lot of sports curses were deleted last year but this is a new one. No references cited. BoojiBoy17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the writer of this article, I would like to offer an ultimatum: if the team that defeats Detroit during the playoffs doesn't make it to the finals, I will gladly accept the deletion of this article. Please keep this article for now in order to see if the Curse of Detroit actually exists... --PsychoJason22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Errr ... no; Wikipedia doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. We work on consensus on the merits rather than as a result of sports bets or Ron MacLean's unsupported say so in re: curses. No doubt there's also some combination in which the middle names of at least one female relative of each Columbus Blue Jackets stickboy spell out "666," but Wikipedia doesn't have articles about those things either. Ravenswing 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not crystal ball. That a team has lost early in the playoffs for a few years in a row hardly constitutes a curse, even if one commentator mentions it in passing. There are no reliable sources that would allow for proper attribution, and no evidence that the "Curse of Detroit" is used by anybody to describe the Red Wings failures. Even if the Wings lose to the Flames, it still would not constitute any evidence of any curse. Resolute05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think you're all making a foolish mistake. Come June 2007, if the same scenario occurs again, I will make sure the article returns. Four years in a row, if that is the case, really merits an article. --PsychoJason04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. I think the word your looking for PsychoJason, is "bargain" as opposed to "ultimatum". An ultimatum would be "I will crush your petty organization if you refuse to keep my article", which I doubt you have the means or the will to do. Croat CanuckGo Leafs Go00:25, 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.
I don't see how having shot a video and being interviewed is an assertion of notability, even if the shot event itself has wide media coverage. Tizio17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cyrus. Recording gunshots is not notability, no matter how many cable channels run it because they have nothing else. --Dhartung | Talk18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because -- while he was initially the anonymous cell phone guy -- he has subsequently used the grainy cellphone footage to ingratiate himself as a reporter and commentator on the issue. Witness the interview with Larry King and the live reporting for Wolf Blitzer, on CNN. Josephgrossberg15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should comment first that I've seen the video, but haven't seen any of the CNN interviews, so I may be missing something. It seems however that they simply paraded this person (among numerous other eyewitnesses) onto TV in the subsequent days. I don't believe there was anything particular notable about his appearances, or that his experiences, observation, or video were particularly notable above anyone else's. There are numerous instances where videos of historic events have gained notability, like with Zapruder film, but that is notable because it had a significant role of its own in the subsequent investigation, and shocked many who watched it. This video hasn't had a significant role yet (I don't believe simply being a video OF a notable event is enough to be notable itself), and in any case that still does not explain HIS notability vs. his video's notability. Tejastheory21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the networks have dragged every student they can find in front of a camera. We don't need articles on them. Before suggesting merge, please LOOK at Virginia Tech massacre. That article is already large - there is no reason to merge this content into the main article. --BigDT (416) 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, the video was only played because it was pretty much the only thing anyone had. The video itself wasn't notable, like say the Zapruder film would be - it was simply a video from outside that really showed nothing at all. Even if it were notable, the article would be about the film, not the person. Tejastheory00:05, 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 closed as Merge content per WP:SNOW, My own vote discounted. Deletion appears to be a close second, but I'm pretty sure the people who voted delete for this article wont mind a redirect to Virginia Tech massacre in its place. ALKIVAR™☢19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A contested speedy. Apparently, he has been mistaken by some (who, is not clear) as the killer of the Virginia Tech massacre. IMO, having some (as opposed to "a lot") of media coverage by mistake is generally not an assertion of notability. I don't think this should be even merged into the main article. Tizio17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Subject is sourced, but may not meet the criteria of inclusion as a independent article. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Resurgent. This has been reported but it barely seems notable, just one of several rumors that first day. There's no evidence the police considered him a suspect at any time. He actually held off his denial so that he could rake in cash via AdSense, for Pete's sake.[39] --Dhartung | Talk18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being briefly and falsely named as a spree killer does not confer encyclopedic notability to satisfy WP:BIO even ifthe name appeared in a few newspapers for a brief while. There was another name bandied about in Wikipedia which was removed by oversight with all traces erased. This article deserves the same fate. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS for more discussion of how not everything that is in the news belongs in an encyclopedia. Edison22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in support of Edison, the essay to which he refers is in support of WP:N footnote 3, which clarifies the meaning of multiple sources as not being independent journals repeating the same minor news event, though wire services or otherwise. --Kevin Murray22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Edison. This is an intersting but obscure aspect of the tragedy and should properly be included in that main article. --Kevin Murray22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update --Kageskull 21:48, 18 April 2007 (EST) I wanted to give a reason not to delete this article. This fella was dealt an incredible injustice by being branded the shooter by members of the tabloid media. Keeping this article, and its citations, can give a point of reference to help this fella out. I agree it shouldn't overshadow this tragedy, but perhaps it could bring to light the consequences of media personalities who propagate misinformation without checking out their sources.
Keep. I suspect that Wikipedia will soon have articles for many of the victims, and Chiang is a different sort of victim of the shootings. Wikipedia kept articles like Richard Jewell and Jean Charles de Menezes; now certainly, what happened to Jewell and Menezes was a lot worse than what happened to Chiang, but the parallel holds in that they were people falsely regarded as being perpetrators of a major crime. —Lowellian (reply) 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* Has anyone thought about the ethics of putting this man up for the world to see? He has been given the right to assert his innocence using his own voice - who are we to determine that his name will be associated with the massacre for years to come? He may want to affirm his innocence and then return to relative obscurity. --SianMycock02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because thee will be multiple news stories about him, some for the reason that this is different from the stories about those murdered, and does not have a personally tragic ending. There will be time to merge if it seems appropriate later. I am a little puzzled by all the attempts to immediate delete articles at a time when judgment is not yet reliable. WP did a remarkably good job of covering the story because of the large number of contributors available, and the inherent advantages of a wiki in dealing with multiple people contributing small amounts. That's not WPs primary purpose, but we should hardly be ashamed of being able to do it, and to rush to remove what we were able to build. These reactions of the people here are an interesting response to the tragedy and probably worth analyzing, but that's another matter.DGG03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not immediately Keep it up for a few weeks, as it's a notable part of a currently international incident. People browsing Wikipedia, reading up on the massacre, looking for all facts, will be glad to see it. I was, just right now. As the event fades into a more historical context, it will become less notable, and should be deleted. I'd certainly merge into the main article the quote of his though, with reference.--Recoil4204:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this information can be said within the main article. It's ridiculous that just because his name was mentioned that he has an entire article devoted to him? Zodiiak05:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article should be kept, because in a couple of weeks it will be the only way for someone to find neutral information, or information at all about him, confirming he's innocent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.239.66 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 April 2007
Delete; Chiang's role is peripheral to the event itself at best, but moreover inconsequential to the event. As I feel that the Inaccuracy article also should be deleted, my views are further substantiated from there. This article violates WP:N. --Mhking20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deserved little more than half a paragraph in the build up to finding out who the real murderer was. I am sure this guy doesn't want his 10 minutes fame from this, lets us not give it him -- Jimmi Hugh00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No... he already has mention, a merge insinuates more additions. The idea that we would scrub the information from wikipedia is absurd, so obviously i beleive the main article should contain this point. --Jimmi Hugh01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge He wasn't a central part of the VTech massacre, but he was a victim of the media, and a statement clearing his name should be included somewhere. Robin Chen05:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete / redirect to VTech massacre article - Non-notable subject, the single notable thing about him can be mentioned in the main VA Tech massacre article or the Inaccuracies article if it survives AfD. AvB ÷ talk12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His involuntary involvement with the massacre is hardly noteworthy enough for an individual article on him. At best he's worth a brief mention in the main article. Otherwise, people need to go through every murder case on Wikipedia and cite every suspect the police/media had before coming to their actual conclusion. And then make an article about each of them. Ludicrous. Mentality15:20, 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.
Clearly original research. Creator has reverted {{originalresearch}} tag twice. Aside from the obvious misspelling in the title, is there a suitable redirect location for this, or should it be deleted outright? --Finngalltalk17:44, 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.
Fails to assert notability of subject, websearch produces 19 hits (edited to add - with parameters of "Hai-Sha Ni" acupuncture"), several of which are wikipedia or mirrors, no secondary sources WLU17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very interesting to see the chicken-egg dilemma happening in Wikipedia. We have domain knowledge in Chinese (A) and English (B). There is always a first attempt to share the knowledge from one A to B, or vice versa. But once the first attempt happens, some people in the B domain will refuse the right of the EXISTENCE of such attempt,not mentioning to accept it, since no other reference exist before in domain B. Is it the right way to treat a new article in wikipedia? Probably not. So deletion based on lack of references in domain B does not stand.
As to verification, keeping in mind there are millions of people who are bilingual in English and Chinese, they can do the verification if people only knowing English can not. Also, the person in question has an English website and a USA local address. It can be verified if English readers really want to verify the information in USA. It was actually my major reason to create English article for this doctor because he stirs a large debate in China and I wanted to attract USA people to verify his claims. A little selfish motivation. :-)
For the usage for English readers. Information about alternative medicine and doctors are important for all people,regardless what language they speak. We all know the main stream practice in medicine today is far from perfect. And the doctor in question is practicing medicine right in USA with an English site. If the article deliveries the accurate information, He is more useful to English people than to Chinese people in fact.
I guess the deletion policy in wikipedia is like the conviction of suspect in law system. We should keep an article unless you have very solid reason to delete it, not solely based on dubious doubts. It is a death penalty to a piece of information, or even an important one to people in need. We have to be very cautious when deleting an article. --Leo19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your points: since you are the article creator, it is YOUR job to improve the article such that it should be kept, for example by referencing all statements in the article to reliable sources (newspapers, not blogs or advocacy sites). They don't need to be English sources, but they do need to be good sources. Wikipedia is not a court of law; it is the responsibility of the person who wants information to be included to prove that it should be included. Yes, there are plenty of us around who are bilingual in Chinese and English and could do this improvement for you, but to put it bluntly, many of us plain old won't want to unless you show some initiative to improving the article yourself; we all have our own pet articles we'd like to improve as well, not to mention stuff to do in the real world. Finally, your use of "death penalty for information" is an exaggeration; we have Wikipedia:Deletion review to request that deleted pages be undeleted. cab09:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would spend some time to evaluate the merit of the article rather than telling the creator's responsibility. Creators of wiki articles certainly have some responsibility. But the able readers like you should also do their part rather than solely relying on/waiting for the creators, which would be against the collaboration spirit in wikipedia. You still have not provide a single direct reason for deleting this article. Have you found any fact error, bias, POV? Finally, deleting IS the death penalty for an article based on common sense, not my personal exaggeration. --Leo16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand this argument coming from a newbie, but you have been on Wikipedia since 2004; that makes you my senior around here. You know how to write a proper encyclopedia article: find reliable sources, write a series of verifiable statements referenced to those sources, and form them into a cohesive narrative that demonstrates why the topic should be in an encyclopedia. I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this topic, and I don't have the desire to spend an evening doing the necessary background reading to get myself up to the level necessary to write an encyclopedia article on it. You are interested in this topic, so why are you so resistant to improving the article? If you were a newbie, and couldn't be expected to know how to do this, I'd do it for you, but this is clearly not the case here. cab18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I stated previously on the Talk page, this article is merely promoting one TCM practitioner out of the many thousands in the world. TCM itself is already well-covered in its own separate article. While Hai-Sha Ni and his associates propose some novel (?) ideas, there are no refereed publications supporting any of this, and in fact, some of the ideas are flatly contradicted by established scientific knowledge and are in the "crackpot" realm. There is no difference between the scientific method in China and anywhere else. The arguments in defence of the article are, at best, extremely confused. It is essentially admitted that the claims are unverified: "It was actually my major reason to create English article for this doctor because he stirs a large debate in China and I wanted to attract USA people to verify his claims". I should also note that the article is very poorly written and structured. AussieBoy01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike most other TCM practitioners, this one is notable. Like I said, a Google search for his name returns 8,920 hits. Whether or not his ideas are "crackpot" is irrelevant to whether or not this article should be kept. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I distrust arguments that contain the phrase, just another. People are notable or not as individuals. Notable practitioners of whatever school who attract media attention are notable, just as much so if their practices are irrational or harmful; the articles will naturally need to find sourced quotations and cite their judgments, not give ours'. DGG03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The raw results of a Google search for his name are not worthwhile evidence of notability. What proportion of the hits are actually him? I note that some 1990 of the hits are on the website www.hantang.org.cn! Some of the hits in Chinese also argue that his views are highly suspect--they are not all positive. My argument was meant to indicate that he lacks notability--he is a TCM practitioner like tens of thousands of others, so this alone does not make him notable. His website contains many bizarre and unsubstantiated claims, and that does not make him notable either (imho). I concede that if it can be established that he has a significant following, that could make him notable, but only as a popular quack. AussieBoy05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... but being notable as a popular quack would still mean he is notable... Like I said, it's irrelevant how bizarre or unsubstantiated his claims are. Heck, that may be precisely why he has become notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but there would still have to be real evidence of notability, not just the unanalyzed results of a Google search. A Google News search for his name (in Chinese) gets no hits whatsoever. This appears to be good evidence of his lack of media attention (and by extension, notability). The article would also have to be rewritten and include a section of controversy/criticism if it is to survive at all. I still say delete, given his apparent lack of any real notability. AussieBoy08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (1) First of all, having previous patients as volunteers to establish supporting websites in both mainland China and Taiwan is the hard/real evidence for any Chinese doctor's notability. Not to mention the hot debate around him in numerous blogs, forums, and websites. Can you provide us just a single western doctor having the same phenomena? The bottom line is that doctors' notability come from their previous patients' praise, not from paid news, magazines, TV advertisement etc. (2) Also. using only news reports as the standard of notability is biased and unacceptable. Many persons get famous in an Internet community first nowadays and then get the attention from professional reporters. The traditional news channels have many concerns or limitations to be even allowed to report a controversial, traditional Chinese doctor like him due to the potential suppressing from main stream western medicine community. Wikipedia should serve as a complementary way to provide ORIGINAL interesting information to people, not just a mirror/collection site or tailing site for previous news articles. (3) per your comment about unanalyzed google results. I did read many search results and analyzed them before creating this article. You can only say you did not analyze the searched results, but you'd better have asked around first if you want to say the results are not analyzed. So your reason for the deletion does not stand. The existence of this article is a typical fight between main stream information and minority information. So far, I am very disappointed that I have not found any hard reasons/evidences for deleting the article. Let's see how it ends. :-) --Leo16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - 1) None of those mentioned count as reliable sources. Western doctors having or not having similar websites are irrelevant to the case. Blogs, fora and websites are not reliable sources, they are meaningless for virtually any wikipedia article.
2) If Hai-Sha Ni has news articles about him, that makes him notable. News reports, scientific journals, government agencies' websites are notable and reliable sources, webpages of unknown origins are not. Personal testimonials do not count as reliable sources. Also, regards your 'original' comment, see WP:NOR, which specifically bars wikipedia providing any original synthesis of information. You might also want to familiarize yourself with WP:5P.
3) If you read the reports, you should be citing them within the article if they are noteworthy. If they were verifiable, reliable and noteworthy sources and were included in the article, we wouldn't be having this deletion review.
4) This is not a fight between mainstream and minority information, this is a debate on whether an obscure acupuncturist is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. A single reliable source on HSN would go a long way towards avoiding deletion. As is, the only thing that could really be written about him according to current sources is his involvement in bill LB270, his work as an acutal acupuncturist would be left out of the article entirely. His personal websites are external links included as an afterthought to the main article, not as sources.
5) Re: "...I have not found any hard reasons/evidences for deleting the article" - A lack of reliable sources is a very good reason, see 8th and 9th point here as well as the 14th. Also see this section, and note that the line "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability", bars any inclusion based upon the information cited in my point 4 above. This is not 'mean old users trying to prevent me from posting valuable information about an important guy', this is users mostly saying he isn't important. WLU20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A person's notability is SOLELY based on what distinguishing saying/doing/responses he/she has COMPARED to others. How can you say other doctors are irrelevant when we talk about a particular doctor's notability? Even the reliable resources you mentioned would never just say person A is notable without providing the context of what other persons are doing, implicitly or explicitly. So your comment about (1) is totally lack of common sense. I feel so strange that even people in wikipedia solely rely on traditional media to judge the notability of a target and think the only reliable resources are among them. I agree that a personal testimonial does not count. But I have said there are hundreds or even more of personal testimonials or supporters as shown by google results. Do they count as an evidence of notability ? Again,notability is based the distinguished attributes of the target compared to others, not if the traditional media has chance to report it. --Leo22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From 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." That is what determines notability. A person's notability is SOLELY based on secondary, independent sources. Policy is common sense. If you wish the articles you create to survive deletion, familiarize yourself with policy. Traditional media is what determines notability, not testimonials which could have been written by anyone, including Hai-Sha Ni. Testimonials are not acceptable as evidence here, just like they are not acceptable in medical research. WLU23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced, no prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article. Dr. Ni is a controversial figure, so having an unsourced or poorly-sourced article about him is a violation of WP:LIVING. An article verifiable by reference to multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sourcescould be written about Dr. Ni, as demonstrated by Google searches above. However, the page as it stands is not such an article, and we lose absolutely nothing by deleting it. My vote changes to keep if the article is improved to the extent that most statements have inline citations to newspapers (either English newspapers or Chinese newspapers are fine). cab08:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Important doctor and he's mentioned in Doctor looks eastward for healing techniquesFort Pierce Tribune (Florida), February 8, 1999. However, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. The article also has several WP:BLP problems, so we might want to speed the deletion of this one. Even if deleted, there is nothing wrong with recreating the article from WP:RS in Chinese so long as everything is in English. -- Jreferee22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cab, fails WP:V. I'm unmoved by the argument that English-language sources don't exist; this guy does his gig in Florida, not Shenzhen or Guangdong. If independent sources from the country in which he lives and works haven't taken notice of him, then he hasn't demonstrated notability. I'm likewise unmoved by the argument that there's something wrong with Wikipedia relying on traditional sources to establish notability. Since Wikipedia is run on consensus, I invite those who disagree with sourcing policy to attempt to change consensus to their own POV. Good luck with that. RGTraynor 13:46, 25 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 webcomic's article was originally deleted at AfD in January. Since that time, the comic's writer has been accused of plagiarism. DRV believes (narrowly) that this new development warrants re-examination of the notability of the comic. Please consult the DRV for sources on the new information. This is a procedural re-listing, so I abstain. Xoloz18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the information on the plagiarism located here. The sheer amount of attention this recieved from notable webcomic artists probably would have qualified this without the media attention it recieved on top of everything. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now, but suggest re-visiting this in say 6 months to see whether the news-story aspect ever gets anywhere. That said, I wouldn't oppose a Merge into Shmorky's article, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to comment that the statement above, "the comic's writer has been accused of plagiarism.", is inaccurate; the big fuss is over the comic's writer (Dave Kelly) claiming and being claimed to be the victim of plagiarism (on the part of Todd Goldman), not that Kelly was "accused of plagiarism" himself. 67.158.77.17103:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind consideration of a redirect to the Goldman article. The plagiarism allegations have been removed by the Wikimedia Foundation Office. [41] --Dragonfiend18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The comic is clearly notable, being a Keenspot comic means that it meets the third requirement in WP:WEB; only one of the three is needed. And this is fiction; andmany pages on books do not cite sources for the content that can be gathered by reading the book; and there are many, many people that are commenting on the matter. If you want more links to people commenting on this, I would be more then happy to do so. (Justyn23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
STRONG KEEP: This comic has influenced a great many comic authors, as many of them have said on their blog pages in recent weeks due to the plagarisim issue. I think that shows this is an important comic for the genre, and the article should be kept. Timmccloud00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keenspot publishing was discussed in the previous AfD. The question we're here to discuss is whether "this new [accusations of plagiarism] development warrants re-examination of the notability of the comic." Since, the current chair of the board of Wikimedia Foundation User:Anthere has removed the accusations of plagiarism from another article "following a legal request,"[42] I'd strongly adviseagainst using the same poorly sourced, potentially defamatory accusations of plagiarism as some strange examples of the "notability" of this webcomic. --Dragonfiend06:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". Wikipedia is not censored. A person's lawyer asking for information to be removed from Wikipedia for the sole reason that it makes his client look bad (dispite that fact that the information is only saying that he was accused of doing something, not weither or not he actually did commit said accusations) fits the definition of censorship to me. (Justyn22:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: [43] was hardly poorly sourced. All it did was state was Goldman was accused of plagiarism, which is very well cited and hardly contestable. Just because his attorney has bullied some people doesn't change the facts he's been accused of plagiarism a few times, and is a defendant in a lawsuit. Boxjam12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purple Pussy has now been mentioned in two secondary sources: the Las Vegas Sun and Juxtapoz, though the latter is now offline only. This satisfies the requirement for several news sources to cover a comic and makes it notable. GarryKosmos22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How does any of this plagiarism nonsense relate directly to Purple Pussy (in other words, how does it help us build a better article)? Nifboy03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It proves notability to the people who like to go around deleting stuff for kicks. The article being around at all would is much better then no article at all, right? (Justyn04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The plagiarism demonstrated the notability of the topic. If Purple Pussy was not notable, no one would have noticed the plagiarism. The fact that it was noticed and received such an overwhelming response from the webcomic and art community (and, in turn, caused at least two reliable sources to cover the event) proves the comic notable on a level necessary to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. GarryKosmos04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do it on Google and you get nearly 1000 hits. [46] Of course, Google hits (or lack thereof) alone matters little, since there are two reliable sources that mentioned the comic (three now, counting the one you just found), satisfying WP:WEB. GarryKosmos07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I do a search on Google rather than Google News if I were looking for reliable news reports on a current event? Cearly Jeffrey Zaslow being plagiarised has recieved much more reputable news coverage, but I don't see how his or anyoen else's being allegedly plagiarised is a notable achievement for them. I can see how a notable artist being a plagiarist is worth noting, but not how the random webcomic artist he may have plagiarised is. If an artist's career highpoint is that they may have been plagiarised, that doesn't sound like it's worth an article. --Dragonfiend14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "may have been" is incorrect; Goldman admitted that he copied Kelly, so the matter is not in dispute by either party (only the intent behind the act remains questionable). The Jimbo quotes that decorate your user page say it all: Wiki should have articles that are based on verifiable, reliable sources. This comic has 3 so far from this incident alone. There's also the other factors that go towards keeping the article beyond just the plagiarism that were brought up in the last AfD. By themselves, they were not enough to prevent deletion; but those, plus this new material, makes it notable by all relevant Wiki policies. GarryKosmos21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are accusations that Goldman plagiarized a lot of different sources. So why is Purple Pussy the one that we're hearing all the fuss about, at much greater volume than any of the other accusations? I submit that it's because Purple Pussy is notable, whereas the other alleged victims are less so. 67.158.73.18813:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd submit it's because your sources are limited to those that get "fussy" about non-notable webcomics rather than other topics; myself, I hear about plenty of other non-notable topics at a much greater volume than this. --Dragonfiend15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how is it non-notable when it's "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works?" It sounds like you disagree with WP:WEB's notability standards, so you should take the conversation there rather than dispute policy in an AfD. Until WP:WEB is changed, multiple published works means notability, so Purple Pussy is a notable webcomic. All that's left to decide is if it's notable enough to get an article. But calling it non-notable is a clear misnomer. GarryKosmos21:06, 24 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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep. The genre is not a play on NWOBHM, in the 2005 documentary Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, New Wave of American Metal is documented as one of metal's subgenres, and clearly lists some bands which practice the genre. The article is not original research, it just hasn't had any sources cited, sources do exist as I have come across the term before in different websites and in the documentary mentioned above. Also the bands listed are considered to be metalcore, but that's because New Wave of American Metal is a subgenre of metalcore and the article clearly states that. I did not write the article and I truly hate the genre but I realize the subject matter is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia and thus I say keep the article. --Leon Sword23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus no sources in an article DOES make it original research until such point that sources are provided. At best, add a paragraph to metalcore, as it's a subgenre. DarkSaber2k10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone with a serious interest in, and a greater than surface-level knowledge of, metal music will acknowledge the need for this article. While a degree of scepticism is understandable on the part of some members in the abscence of extensive sources, I must stress that this is primarily due to the relative recency of the developments covered by this article rather than any serious factual inaccuracies. The key issue is that the style has not yet been given a specific term that you will see applied across the music scene as a whole; 'NWOAM' is the first to allude to the genre specifically, so the article's title is bound to generate some debate for now. The fact remains that the style itself is a mainstream audience oriented offshoot of influences taken from the three genres listed under "stylistic origins" in the article rather than a strict subgenre of any of the three, so in my opinion the need for the article is unquestionable. Under the circumstances I feel that the current title is a suitable one. I believe that efforts should be focused on sourcing the article with every new development rather than considering deletion, which I would believe to be an action taken out of a lack of in-depth understanding of the music rather than a learned and measured response to the article's shortcomings. Please do keep it and help, if you can, to source and develop. Inflammator19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say: "primarily due to the relative recency of the developments" and " the style has not yet been given a specific term that you will see applied across the music scene as a whole"... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't predict that the "genre" or "scene" will be notable in the future, for it isn't as of now. And if it doesn't even have a specific term for it, it is that the scene itself isn't recognized. Zouavman Le Zouave(Talk to me!)09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Comment You missed the following words though, namely " 'NWOAM' is the first to allude to the genre specifically, so the article's title is bound to generate some debate for now ", which it is, and I understand it to be fair. However I would say that you are mistaken if you believe that the genre is not recognised; the association is a somewhat new one and it takes time before widespread usage of terminology can be seen across the media, but that does not mean that that the subject matter is some sort of fabricated speculation. A quick Google search revealed a few links that I'll direct you to as evidence of usage of this term and its connotations beyond, and yet consistent, with the article's content: 1) A news posting on God Forbid's reputed label, Century Media Records' official website on the 23rd of March, 2007 specifically refers to the band as NWOAM in the sentence: "Forerunners of the New Wave of American Metal scene, New Jersey's GOD FORBID, will hit the road in May on The Monsters of Mayhem 2 Tour as direct support to Hatebreed, with Evergreen Terrace, The Acacia Strain and After The Burial in the support slots." link. 2) A music website called the "Oregon Music Guide" specifically refers to the band Killswitch Engage as a NWOAM band in the sentence: "In Flames is currently on tour with Killswitch Engage, one of America's top metal bands and part of the current New Wave of American Metal." link. 3) Although probably not a very reputable and encyclopaedic reference, the last.fm website has NWOAM under its genre tags. A quick look at artists that fall under the tag is consistent with the bands listed in the article. In addition the station associated with the tag has been created by 21 people, so it is not just a one person idea. link. In short, I just want to say that the developments do exist and are not of a speculative nature and sources can be found, but for reasons outlined above, are not available in plenty. Lastly, I return to the first statement I made, which alludes to a need for a greater understanding of the music to distinguish between this accessible NWOAM genre and the genres of metalcore and melodic death metal. Calling these NWOAM bands metalcore would be like calling Rage Against the Machinenu metal. It's more than just a scene; the musical approach itself differs. Inflammator13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say: "the association is a somewhat new one and it takes time before widespread usage of terminology can be seen across the media". You can't use Wikipedia to spread the word about it, and by the same opportunity stating what term to use. Now I'll use another quick Google search. When searching for the exact phrase: "new wave of american metal" on Google, we obtain a total of 591 results, and that includes Wikipedia results. Now if that is notable, then I think I should get my own article on the website for if we type "Zouavman Le Zouave" on Google, we get 661 results (and that's one of my numerous usernames). Zouavman Le Zouave(Talk to me!)14:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Comment Wikipedia is not being used to "spread the word". The text that you have quoted was purely in reference to the fact that the number of quality sources at this early stage are bound to be fewer as opposed to an article with several years of coverage behind it to source from. Also, the Google comment was obviously not made to highlight the power of a Google search... the point was the reference to the specific links I retrieved to support my argument, not the exact number of hits retrieved by the search. Inflammator18:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. It's not a genre, all the bands listed are just Metalcore bands, only time I've ever heard it mentioned in real life is in MetalHammer magazine (UK) applied to Lamb of God, and that's only in one small article. If you want you can write a short about it in Metalcore. Maurauth(...)
Comment No disrespect intended towards anyone here, but after reading some responses I really must question whether the predominant use of the word 'metalcore' here is based upon any sort of knowledge of this genre at all. I would advise anyone who believes that bands such as Trivium, Bullet For My Valentine, Killswitch Engage etc. are 'just metalcore' bands and not in fact practicioners of a different musical approach, to please listen to actual established metalcore acts such as Rorschach and Converge before undermining the need for this article. Of course, no ill feelings towards anyone who is well versed in the genre. Inflammator14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate genre, and many of the well known bands such as Chimaira, Killswitch Engage, Trivium etc... are continually referred to as NWOAHM. A book has also been published (link). However, the title should be New Wave of American Heavy Metal. Dmiles2104:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article had been written a few years ago, it would certainly have been deemed a neologism because, yes, at the time the developments were really only just emerging. Even then, there were terms coined by journalists such as 'Gothencore' and 'Melodic deathcore' to differentiate this new style from its stylistic origin genres. It has been a number of years since then and we are at a stage where verifiability is possible and reputable sources are available in support of the article's contents as a distinct style. I believe that deleting this article at this stage would be nothing short of ignoring the clear cut case of an actual factual emergence of a new metal sub-genre and a legitimate offshoot of its own stylistic origins. If an article needs a fantastic number of reliable sources before it can be approved for Wikipedia, nothing relatively new will ever warrant a place here... I believe that in the presence of a short number of strong sources for core verifiability the article must be allowed to exist, even if necessarily only as a brief and consensual version, reviewed to ensure that it is throroughly NPOV. Pending further sources, the article may be expanded upon and built to ingrain a solid degree of verifiability across the current contents of the article. Inflammator14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the phrase "the new wave of American metal" is used in about 10+ newspaper articles in the context of a second(?) wave of those participating in playing American metal, newspaper use of the combination of these six words is more by happenstance than some sort of WP:N subgenre of metalcore. In particular, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. Without source material, the only Wikipedia option is to delete the article. -- Jreferee23:00, 24 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Articles are available on British Prime Ministers, US Congressmen etc, this job title would be ranked high up in any political party. Seems like this has been nominated since it has little information in it, but it could be suitably expanded with someone who has knowledge on North Korea--PrincessBrat19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the position is obviously notable, is currently held by Kim Jong-Il himself, and can expand easily beyond a dictdef. The article needs serious expansion, but it's easily expandable by someone with passing knowledge of Korean communism. hateless19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (although not speedily) as a notable political office equating to head of state. More information would be brilliant, but may be exceptionally difficult to find. BigHaz - Schreit mich an06:43, 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.
This article fails WP:NOT. Notably, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Moreover, the victims are not notable; their names are simply not notable, and it has been well established that dying violently does not make you notable. Additionally, there is already a list of the victims' names in the main article.
Strong Keep, WP:NOT shows that we should not have separate articles for each victim. However, a single list detailing how each victim was killed is entirely different. It's not a memorial going "omg, he was a family man who loved his daughters and was tragically murdered", it's just providing context and a timeline of who was shot where/when. The Charles Whitman article is too bulky, so the list of victims was moved to a separate articlespace, and we're thinking of moving the list of cultural references, as well. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, isn't it just that? It is basically what memorial pages are; it contains a lot of frankly unimportant information, and these people aren't important ultimately - dying doesn't make you notable. Titanium Dragon23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete as it meets WP:NOT, WP:BIO and notability, while preventing the main article from getting too long. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA!22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do they meet notability guidelines? The only reason their names are even known is they were killed, and even then, we don’t care who they were unless they were otherwise important. They lack wide name recognition, biographies, significant awards and honors, a lasting contribution, or endorsing a product commercially. Multiple features in credible news media? I’m not seeing those at all. Of the four “references”, two don’t even work and the other two are to random websites which don’t appear to have any credentials. There is no evidence to suggest they’re important, and a lot of evidence to suggest that they’re the exact opposite. Most of the information isn’t even cited. I’m failing to see how this article is meeting notability guidelines; really, it seems like a memorial to me, which Wikipedia is not. There's absolutely no reason to make this list. Titanium Dragon23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - because ultimately saying "Che Guevara was responsible for kililng 11 political opponents during his career" is a weasel term on its own, if they can't be named. Naming victims lends credibility and verifiability to a story, and is a good idea in any instance. For example, Abeer Qassim Hamza is "not notable" in any way, she's just some Iraqi girl that got raped and killed in front of her family...but just saying "There was a girl who was raped and killed back during the Iraq War" thirty years from now won't mean much if you can't point to actual specifics, give a name, a date of birth, allow people to verify that these names and dates actually line up with actual people. That is the point of having a single cohesive list of the names of people killed, so that David Irving can't come along in fifty years and go "Who's to say Whitman really killed 17 people? I don't see any record of that, all I see are a bunch of articles that appear to have randomly agreed upon the number 17". Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a weasel term. Its not like we list all six million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. This entire argument is farcical. The reason Abeer Quassim Hamza has an article is because of the incident, and the article is basically about the incident, not about her, much as Charles Whitman's article is mostly about the shooting. The primary sources and government records have the names on them. Wikipedia is all about verifiability; we aren't creators of knowledge. Titanium Dragon05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Whitman's victims are notable as a group for having been the victims of the one of the largest single-shooter mass shootings in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. Nor does this article include any of those "fond remembrances." Arguing for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT is a spurious argument for deletion.
Per WP:NOTE, "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). The topic of this article is all the victims of Whitman's shooting as a group, not any one of them as an individual. Hence, an argument for deletion based upon each victim's individual non-notability is a spurious argument. Nobody is arguing here that each of them is notable enough to warrant their own article -- because in that case yes, WP:NOTE would apply.
A list of Whitman's victims and their manners of death is pertinent detail about a notable historic event.
The only question left is whether to keep this as a separate article, or to merge it. Based on the size of the main article, it seems possible to merge the information here that doesn't already appear in the main article into the main article. But under no circumstances should this information merely be deleted based upon the spurious dependence on WP:NOT or WP:NOTE, which have no relevance on the information presented here.
Its not spurious; several Wikipedia editors noticed that it was an issue and decided to do something about it. Basically, they realized that it wasn't notable or encyclopedic, and was nothing but a memorial list. Its worth reading WP:RECENT. It isn't notable, really, who he killed because none of the people he killed were notable. What was notable was that he did kill people. The only purpose of listing their names is to memorialize them. Titanium Dragon00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with list on main article, taking a few details (like age, order of death, place of death) but cutting down main biographies. Then redirect, so the information is still accessible via the history for future use.--Jackyd10112:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a memorial, a summary of notable (that is, noted in in the news) information about people of interest, even if that interest is morbid and the information a bit sparse. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have voted delete at the AFDs for the lists of victims at the Virginia Tech and Columbine High School massacres, but this is different. Rather than being a memorial, this appears to describe the event itself. It probably should be moved to something like Charles Whitman shooting timeline and be cleaned up to focus more on the events themselves.--FreeKresge02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE, "How is this a memorial again?" Because his victims aren't notable and this list doesn't help anyone further understand the event. Some of the entries in this list do NOTHING to further help understand the person killed (i.e. margaret whitman's entry that she was killed in her apartment . . . we already knew that from the article, and nothing else is listed about her), and besides, the only reason anyone would come to read this article is to find out more about Charles Whitman, who IS notable. His victims are not notable except for having been killed by him, which is not sufficient for inclusion into wikipedia, unlike some of the professors in the VT tragedy whom ARE notable. I do NOT think that deleting a list of their names is appropriate either, necessarily, but I definitely do not see the additional value from listing anything other than names, as has been done in this case. And, sure, the information contained in the list is factual and verifiable -- but encyclopedias are not intended to hold EVERY SINGLE fact about every single event and person that has ever existed, but merely to provide the framework for understanding in a general context. No one here can become a biologist by reading the wikipedia entry on "Biology" -- there's more information there than can be included. Same with this article -- it's merely a starting point for additional research if one feels so inclined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJEagleHawk (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, 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. Last year (before this debate), I consulted this list because one of the victims taught me calculus a few years before he was shot in Texas. (Yes, this means that I am older than most of you). Dirac6619:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't particularly surprise me, especially given your username could well imply you are 66 years old or graduated from college in 1966. However, the problem is that this is kind of my point; names aren't meaningful unless you personally knew them, and every year fewer and fewer people did. Fundamentally, its just a list of stuff that no one in a hundred years would care about, because they're entirely mundane. It isn't really notable or meaningful, and Wikipedia is not designed to be a repository of all information ever; it is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. It isn't meant as a slight against them, I just don't see why it is notable at all. Titanium Dragon09:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list on main page unless any were notable for reasons other than being a victim of this person, in which case those ones should have invidual articles. A1octopus12:58, 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.
Keep but cleanup article, possibly with a chainsaw... seems to be a rising star amongst morning shows. In 10 markets already and beating established shows like Bob and Tom in some markets. [47], [48]. Seems to be enough sources. --W.marsh23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I fail to see how being a local radio show has anything to do with Wikipedia's deletion rules. Add the fact that they're syndicated in 10 markets means they're hardly just "local." Could you cite specifically the specific terms that were violated by this article, or are you just an angry Bob and Tom fan?Brstil16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a local radio show makes it unlikely that a show has generated enough notability for an article. There are ZERO links or references showing notability (the only links are are self-references). As to being an angry fan? A : I'm in the UK so I've never heard the show, and B : Assume good faith - I nominated this article as I can't see how a local radio show (albeit one that's syndicated to some other stations) is notable all by itself. We really need some references showing why it is. Hell for all we know, the 10 stations have a collective audience of 1000 people. exolon22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Free Beer and Hot Wings Show had an article previously that seems to have been deleted. I believe the old article contained more useful information and links. If you bring it back, then we can discuss that one and add in any necessary links to show notability. This show is in many markets and continues to expand. It beats out the legendary Kevin Matthews in the Grand Rapids market (only market for him), yet his article remains.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is about a proposed TV show, delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL Subject is non-notable, Google searches do not turn up records of a proposed TV show of this name. Delete, as it fails WP:V. also DB-SPAM, and also WP:COI as the primary editor of the entry is listed in the TV "credits".LuckyLouie19:46, 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.
Addeum : This refers to revisions added in 19 April 07. It appears that there is a completely different version of the article, which is an album of Jackson Browne. The latter revisions will be restored; if deletion is required, simply create a second nomination. - Mailer Diablo14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can be provided to prove notability according to WP:MUSIC. My google search yielded very little. Also, I tried to place the debate in the correct category, but either I'm a moron or that template can't be edited. Probably both. --Tractorkingsfan20:32, 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.
Merge I cited indisciminate information for the prod as the article is highly specific to the use of one product (firewood) in one region (Victoria) of one country (Australia). Articles on British Ketchup or a Card games played in Atlanta would be similar examples of information I'd consider indisciminate because they're too limited in scope. Rather, as I suggested at Talk:Victorian Firewood, the useful information within this article could be split amongt articles such as wood fuel (currently source-less and lacking any Australia-specific information), Eucalyptus camaldulensis (which lacks detailed info on its deforestation & use as firewood) & deforestation (which lacks a section on Australia), for example. POV prose can be fixed, but nothing will change the fact that this article is far too narrow a topic, existing as an amalgamation of information that would be more appropirate & useful in other articles. — Scientizzle21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is written as an essay where the facts have been selected to fit a particular POV. Take away the POV and nothing else exists. Merging the POV offending statements into other articles doesn't make them any less POV unless some attempt is made to balance them. Harvesting River red gum timber may not be a good thing but residents of Koondrook, Mathoura and Gunbower would likely have a different opinion. --Mattinbgn/talk22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree about the POV in the text. I was just trying to convince the article's author to move the modest amount of sourced content into more relevant articles (minus the POV, of course). Hell, if we don't hear from Davidjdh (talk·contribs), I'll do it myself. — Scientizzle22:48, 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.
Speedy Delete, laugh at Tikiwont's wit. I tagged this as speedy, and don't see any evidence that it's been tagged as AfD... let's speedy it either way. Nihiltres(t.c.s)17:49, 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.
Delete. This is another hoax by Lyle123, using a sockpuppet to circumvent his ban. It has all the hallmarks of a classic Lyle123 hoax except for not being an upcoming film. Esn04:48, 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.
Speedy keep. With respect to Conrad (and we only have the nominator's word that these are in fact her wishes), she is a public figure who has appeared in two major television programs and has also won a notable award. Such notability disqualifies one from requesting that media coverage be removed. This does not, of course, apply to incorrect or libellous information that may be in the article and which fall under WP:BLP policies. But that's a content issue, not a "should this article exist?" issue. 23skidoo22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The reason stated here is the same as for the last one, in saying the nominator works for MTV, speaks for Ms. Conrad, and wishes the article deleted due to Conrad's wishes. The subject is notable, but that is not what the nomination is about. As before, the nominator has no proof that they actually speak on behalf of Ms. Conrad, and even if they did, there is no grounds for deletion. Also as before, this deletion makes for the nominator's first and only edits to WP and seems to be a clear violation of WP:POINT. --skew-t22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep not a valid reason for deletion. Daniel Brandt has been deleted yet, as can be seen by the fact that it is still blue linked. Oh, and if you want to go the Brandt route, you're going to have to be spending over a year and a half to get it down, unless the courtesy bio policy gains conesnsus and becomes policy. hbdragon8800:32, 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.
Original research. The article itself says: "The exact nature of the FTL drives remains unexplained in the show; what information exists has been extrapolated from on-screen dialogue". Also, no coverage of this topic in immediately apparent reliable sources, and we are not a TV guide. I understand there is a Battlestar Galactica Wiki better suited to this sort of content. Sandstein22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article contains multiple references. The article contains real-world analysis. The nominator states "Original research. The article itself says: 'The exact nature of the FTL drives remains unexplained in the show; what information exists has been extrapolated from on-screen dialogue'", clearly that means: "Exactly how the FTL drive takes your from a to b is not known, the information that is known is stated here", though I expect it already knew this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, popular culture is perfectly notable/encyclopaedia as per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references are to the show's episodes. The information contained in the article is not "known", because it is not attributable to a reliable source. Editors interpolating information from TV show episodes is original research (it would have been different if, say, someone had written that info up in a book). Sandstein04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary references are perfectly acceptable ("Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." -- WP:NOR, the article is inline with that paragraph.) - Listen, I understand it must hurt to be proven wrong time and again.. but that's no reason to give false reasons/make stuff up :-( -- nowhere do I see any interpretation nor anything saying primary sources are outlawed. Matthew06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to primary sources being used. However, I object to information being interpolated from them; this - as the policy you cite says - requires a secondary source. An appropriate primary source here would be a sequence of some character in the show lecturing on FTL drive physics. Making guesses based on incidences of FTL tech being used in the show is not, however, an acceptable use of primary sources. As with Cyberia23 below, I most strongly suggest you refrain from assuming bad faith and making personal attacks. Sandstein07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pop culture reference and the show is very popular. Perhaps it can become part of a bigger article on Battlestar Galactica technology. For the record, Battlestar Wiki isn't very reliable - there is more fancruft and far more "original research" there than here and their site is terribly slow and off-line quite often especially as the show airs. Cyberia2323:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not notability. Notability requires substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The show itself fits that criterion, its fictional FTL technology does not. The unreliability of another site is not a reason to keep this article. Sandstein04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everything works around here based solely on YOUR opinion Sandstein - I know you admins have trouble believing that - but you brought up Battlestar Wiki and I told you why it sucks. Cyberia2305:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said we were a mirror of Battlestar Wiki, and I'm remaining perfectly civil. You're just another deletionist and if your going to threaten articles at random because you don't like them then you have to expect to open up a can of worms with those who participated in creating it. Goes with the process. Cyberia2318:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all calm down here a little. To my eyes, Sandstein hasn't said one rude thing throughout this entire discussion. It's very easy to misconstrue disagreement as a personal attack, especially on a subject one is passionate about. --Fru1tbat11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Were it not for the above-mentioned line regarding extrapolation from the show's dialog, this article would be perfectly viable. It requires editing, not deletion. --BlueSquadronRaven07:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — If anything, the erroneous statement the one in which the article claims to be extrapolation from observed or published facts. The article is a collation of such facts, and that is precisely what an encylopaedic article should do: pull together facts from disparate sources into a cogent and readable whole. Sullivan.t.j18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Citing episodes from the series where observations are taken and synthesised to derive information about the characteristics of the drive. That is very much original reearch. -- Whpq22:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without real world significance that is specific to the series, the article cannot be more than plot summary and original research. Jay3218322:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your statement at face value, Jay32183, one could say the same of all the articles on the characters in Battlestar Galactica, or any other fictional series: they have no real-world relevance except to provide plot summary and hint at what the actor/actress in question has been doing for a living. Sullivan.t.j01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Artciles on fictional topics are required to have real world context. This may mean that many articles have been created that never should have been, but that's no reason to keep this one. Jay3218301:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "many" might be a great understatement. A rigorous enforcement of the policy that you seem to be suggesting would lay waste to large tracts of Wikipedia dealing with fictional topics, which would be a gross over-reaction. I would also like to point out that the criterion for inclusion at WP:NOT#IINFO and repeated out of context on WP:Notability (fiction), clearly pertains to plot summaries, which the article in question is not even attempting to be. The sensible criterion for a "background" article like this one, or — to take the first article that comes to my mind from another realm of fiction — Narsil, is whether or not it contributes to a reader's understanding of the Battlestar Galactica/The Lord of the Rings universe. I suggest that if such considerations aren't part of the notability debate now, they should be, and articles like this one deserve a stay of execution pending such policy-level discussion. Sullivan.t.j04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a fictional work with no real world context is a plot summary. The fact that this plot summary is highly specialized is not relevant. There is no real world context, there needs to be. Without reliable sources to provide real world context the article should be deleted. Jay3218304:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do not agree with the proposition that "[a]n article about a fictional work with no real world context is a plot summary". Would you please provide an argument in support of it? Secondly, I do not agree that real-world context is the sole criterion by which Wikipedia articles about fictional subjects are judged: the survival of hundreds (if not thousands) of articles about fictional characters, places, objects and technologies testifies to the fact that such articles are de facto, if not de jure, notable. While your commitment to the letter of the law is notable, I think that you would do well to consider the extent of the opposition that you would likely face in trying to thoroughly implement what you (implicity) propose, and how that would run against the spirit of Wikipedia. Sullivan.t.j05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you do not present an argument about the notability of this subject, but rather there are a lot of articles that are not notable enough to be included. With no real world context the article is just plot summary because all of the information comes straight from the plot. If the article is not just plot summary with no real world context, then there is even more reason to delete it, because it contains original research. What I am suggesting does not run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan guide. This isn't an "I don't like it" argument, if there were reliable sources for real world context used to expand the article then the article should be kept. Stargate (device) has real world context, so I would not claim that it should be deleted. Jay3218317:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, in what sense does Stargate (device) have "real world context"? The wormhole physics of the Stargate is just as speculative as the physics of the warp drive in Star Trek or the FTL/jump drive of Battlestar Galactica. Or are you referring to the section on the actual Stargate prop? If this is the kind of "real-world context" that you wish to see, it should be an easy matter for you to be bold add it — in keeping with the Wikipedian spirit of "improve, not delete". Secondly, you are correct to point out that I have defended the notability of this article largely by comparison with other articles on similar topics. A less comparative justification for its notability is that faster-than-light travel is a topic of interest, and that at this stage in human history any discussion of FTL travel is necessarily either fictional or speculative — but not necessarily un-interesting, especially when it provides background to a television series of current popular interest. I am not yet convinced by your case that this article is somehow especially poor, nor have I seen evidence that you actually intend to pursue your programme of deleting non-notable articles on fictional technologies, or fictional subjects more generally. Do you really intend to nominate for deletion all articles meeting your criteria? Sullivan.t.j19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real world context is the discussion of the writing process. With Star Gate and Star Trek there are reliable sources for what the writers were basing the fictional concept on, this article does not contain that. You still have not defended the notability of the subject of this article. Discussing the notability of related things is not the same as asserting notability. This article makes no assertion of real world notability. No discussion of development, no critique from reliable television or sci-fi critics, no discussion on imapct of culture. There isn't even any eveidence that there are reliable third-party sources, which is the determining factor in deciding notability on Wikipedia. To remind you again, the fact that other articles should be deleted and are not being discussed for deletion is not a reason to keep. Look at this article by itself. The fact that the article presents no real world context and asserts no notability from reliable third-party sources is a reason to delete. Jay3218320:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the last sentence of your reply: no! It's a reason to improve, not delete. Even if I were to accept the rest of your position, I would still stick to the ethic that, on Wikipedia, improvement is preferable to deletion. Your responses read like those of someone with precisely the opposite opinion. Sullivan.t.j20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no one makes the effort to improve the article over the course of the AFD then deletion is the best option. Chances are, the sources you need don't exist. Improve is not always an option. If this is the best the article can be, based on reliable sources, then the article should be deleted. You have not once presented a sound argument to keep, because you've presented no evidence that the article can be improved. I maintain that my final statement is reason to delete, not reason to improve, because there's no evidence that improvement is possible. Jay3218322:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't even need improvement. It's a well written, out of universe article that covers a subject that spans decades and a number of television series and min-series. - Peregrine Fisher23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article asserts no real world significance, so it would need improvement. It can't be improved so it should be deleted. Jay3218323:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to submit for deletion every single article that meets your definition of "no real-world significance" (e.g. every article about every fictional character) and observe the response that you get. You would quickly realize that real-world significance is not the only criterion by which the merits of articles about fictional subjects are judged. An additional criterion is significance to the fictional universe in question, provided that it is referenced and not written in an in-universe style. This is what you don't seem to see/agree with: notability applies in different ways to fictional subject matter versus factual subject matter. Sullivan.t.j01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) You are very wrong on that. There are articles on fictional characters to be featured because they include real world context. Link (The Legend of Zelda), Padme Amidala, and Palpatine all have real world significance included in the article. In-universe significance is completely irrelevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. Jay3218302:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't the only Faster-than-Light page shown for a specific universe. Check 'Category:Faster-than-light travel in fiction'. Babylon 5, Outlaw Star, "The History of the Galaxy;" all these and others have a page of their own on FTL travel, and none of those are being considered for deletion.Ye Olde Luke23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other pages should be deleted and aren't being discussed is not a reason to keep. We can do things one at a time to make sure things get done. Jay3218300:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seriously, articles like this should fit in battlestar wiki. There is absolutely no need to analyze in such detail an average sci-fi show like this one. Plus, the article has a strong tendency towards original research, despite the author's claims.--Kamikaze10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because a more specific wiki exists is an extremely poor rationale for purging content from WP. In fact, I'd say it's not even a valid rationale in any sense. An article on the FTL drive doesn't make WP a tv guide (sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me). Finally re: OR. Citing episodes is not original research.; it's citing a primary source. Cburnett18:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting is OR, stating facts within an episode is not. See WP:NOR, or better yet I'll quote! ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.") Feel free to show me where there is any interpretation. Matthew19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of "implies", "appears", "it is not clear". And as example for interpretation take "the dialogue implies that...". It doesn't "state".--Kamikaze09:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uses of "appears" (3 in all) seem to me to be entirely correct in describing that which is observed to be the case. For example, the idea of "apparent time" in FTL travel is one that one would wish to consider in view of general relativity. (I agree that, in English, "appears" as opposed to "is" connotes some uncertainty, but it has the advantage of almost automatically avoiding in-universe style issues, and insulates against revelations in future episodes.) "Implies" occurs only once in the entire article; I agree that it should be rephrased to reflect that this is only in view of the phrase to "spin up" an FTL drive. "It is not clear" also appears just once in the article, and is a perfectly valid statement of in-universe physics yet to be revealed. Five occurrences in toto do not make the article "full" of the phrases, Kamikaze. You have a point that the language can and should be improved, but please do not exaggerate the extent of the problem. Sullivan.t.j16:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It occurs to me that such seemingly vague language is characteristic of Wikipedians who wish to stick to reporting the truth without extrapolation; such a person would say that of house-like shape seen on a hill in the distance that there appears to be a house on the hill, not that there is. This may seem annoyingly vague or pedantic to some, but is straightforward truth-telling to others. In the case of television shows and films replete with special effects and storytelling sleight-of-hand, "appears" is the more cautious and correct approach. Sullivan.t.j16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate on why you think that a fair witness approach is "hardly" appropriate to Wikipedia? (I'm not promoting it as the only style that we should use, just saying that it is valid.) Sullivan.t.j16:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is utterly futile. I was merely pointing that the large amount of dubitative wordings indicate the article's tendency towards interpretation et ipso facto OR.--Kamikaze17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I was merely pointing out that five (the number of times such "dubitative wordings" appear) is not a large number, and that some of those five instances are entirely justifiable and do not necessarily constitute OR, the case in point being apparent passage of time. Sullivan.t.j17:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is ultimately useless to cling on to the dubitative wording issue which you have failed to thoroughly comprehend it. Those five words were merely examples, not the sole occurences of questionable writing meant for masking original research.--Kamikaze14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this would make an outstanding article in a fanzine, and I suggest that the authors userfy it for that purpose. However, it is an exercise in original research. Metamagician300011:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Valid subject, valid sub-article of the main thing, and there are a number of magazines and sites that are independent of the subject to expand further. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am not a fan of the show, but based on a quick look around the internet, the term FTL does seem to be commonly-used by the fan community. A Google search brought up 38,400 hits.[50] It's also well-known enough that the term FTL appears on the SciFi.com Battlestar Galactica glossary.[51] As such, the concept appears notable enough to deserve an article. --Elonka00:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually don't see any OR. The article reads like a list of data about FTL provided by the show. There is no original synthesis nor do I see them drawing conclusions (outside the obvious). jbolden1517Talk01:09, 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.
Pure Simpsons cruft, it plays a minor role in one episode and the page says nothing that can't be said on the page for The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, so its own page really isn't needed. There is no allegation of real world context. At the very least it should be merged, since it only appeared in one episode, there is only one place it could link to. Scorpion23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it appears in the same episode and is also cruft :
Please see "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" [52] which says: - "Example: Delete as cruft... Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted."
"Scorpion" stated it "plays a minor role" and "isn't needed". Wikipedia policy says: Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N)
Deleting the article is in opposition to Wikipedia philosophy and goal. Wiki's goal is stated as follows: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles. The references cited back up the goal to have a corresponding article in "every other general purpose encyclopedia"
And why is it notable? Because it appeared for a half a minute in a single episode? You are simply quoting policy, not explaining how it applies to this article. -- Scorpion23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE: Wikipedia policy says that notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ([53]). Gekritzl01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
First of all, you can keep Crab juice on that list, even if the article gets deleted. Crab juice is still a fictional beverage, even if it doesn't have an article.
Secondly, notability also means that an items will have multiple, non-trivial, third party references discussing it. This does not - it's no "Bond Martini", after all.
Thirdly, show me a single general purpose encyclopedia which has an article on Crab Juice.
Finally, the "actual use" reference doesn't even refer to Crab Juice, as explained the article. Crab Juice is a fictional beverage - the crab stock used in cooking is not a beverage at all. You claimed earlier it was a beverage? Is it?
Furthermore, I said hilariously well sourced because it has lots of really bad sources. Quantity of sources is not a substitue for quality, and five of the eight trivial references there don't even refer to the subject of the article in question. Construing my comment as some kind of rational for keeping it is absurd in total. One of the remaining three doesn't even support the claim it makes, and the remaining two are not reliable --Haemo23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletion_policy). First, it says "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Nowhere does it say that notability also means that it must have "multiple" references; nor "non-trivial" references. Let's work to build WP, even when the subject is one of trivia -- do you think we should delete all articles relating to trivial matters? According to this criteria, most of the content on The Simpsons should be deleted. Moreover, there is no WP criteria for whether an article is "needed". Gekritzl00:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes, but apparently there is not doubt here. And yes, I do think we should delete all articles relating to trivial, non-notable material. Oh, and quoting from WP:NOTE:
"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline.
Reply: Thanks, Jonathan and Brian. I have more references, I'll add them. Then, please take a look and see what you think. - Michael (Gekritzl00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: None of the "cultural references" you added are overly notable. A lot of Simpsons characters and items are mentioned in newspaper articles. Now, if a company actually started manufacturing Crab Juice BECAUSE of the episode, THEN it would be notable. -- Scorpion01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian - The New York Times and Virginia Law Weekly mean nothing to you? And now you use the term "overly notable"? I don't see that criteria in WP. It DEFINITELY doesn't require a company to actually start manufacturing Crab Juice to make this subject notable! Again, let's work to build this body of knowledge, not knock it down. - Michael Gekritzl01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we just keep the Crab Juice and Khlav Kalash articles as they are? Both are well researched, well cited, with a variety of related information, and both being wiki-linked from several other WP articles. Gekritzl01:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian - I very much respect your input here at WP. Yes, "Three" is indeed "several". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several –adjective 1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.
Merge either to the episode article, or one on Simpsons products in general. Coverage of crab juice seems reasonable. But its own article? Tries to take minor content too far. FrozenPurpleCube03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - okay, I see you've added 4 new sources. Two are print, and so I can't verify them right away. I'll have to head up to the University to verify them, unless someone else has a source. The other two are not WP:RS - one's a blog, and the other is user-submitted reviews. However, if the two print ones check out, I'll change my !vote to keep. --Haemo05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - If 'crab juice' is a real substance which is referenced in a recipe, the article should be relevant to the REAL WORLD product. Any Simpsons mention should be secondary under a 'cultural references' type section. The recipe in this article seems to just be an author's bid to try and make a minor Simpsons one-off mention "legitimate" by saying "hey look, it exists". But as mentioned, this info could be covered quite easily in the episode article. Almost everything in this article relates to both Crab juice and Khlav Kalash. If both were combined in the episode's article, there'd be half as much to read, and it would give the episode article some nice cultural references, which always improves an article. the Kalash article has a trivia points section, which, if I recall correctly, wikipedia frowns upon. The Kalash article is LITERALLY: KK is a fictional food mentioned in [this episode]. Homer eats it and it tastes bad. It's mentioned again in one other episode. There's a band named after it. This is NOT noteworthy/ notable. Furthermore, it's just explaining a joke. The article lists 4 facts:
KK is a fictional food from the aforementioned Simpsons episode (the slavic origin in both articles is arguably original research)
Homer buys a stick of KK in the episode which he describes as tasting awful (the asking for a drink is not really relevant, and probably is just a way for the author to add legitimacy to the crab juice article).
It is not subjective. The band does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion of a band. If a page were created it would easily be deleted under A7. Jay3218319:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first fact is covered if this is merged into the episode article, leaving 3 facts. I argue that a merge is notably sufficient (crab juice and KK will still redirect to the Ep article, which could obviously have subtitles if someone wants to do that in a merge.
I should also note that the ONLY facts in the Crab Juice article that are actually about crab juice is that it's a fictional drink from the aforementioned episode, and that Homer bought several from a KK dealer in NYC. Everything else is episode synopsis and tells you nothing about crab juice itself. The cultural references can easily be merged with the Ep article.
TheHYPO08:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE: Please see: [54]Example: Delete ... This is probably the worst kind of argument that can be made in a deletion debate because, well, it isn't an argument. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature is almost certainly not going to be considered by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present actual reasons as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it's an argument based on the right reasons... Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. "
Comment - okay, again, the sources for this article are still not any good. Let's go through them, piece by piece:
- "List of neologisms on The Simpsons" - this reference links to a Wiki, which is not a WP:RS, and actually should not be included in any encyclopedia article as a reference.
- "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson at IMDB" - again, this links to a list of quotes from IMDB, which has no editorial oversight, and is editable by anyone. This is also not a WP:RS, and should be be included as a reference to the article.
- "AllExperts" - yet another cite which is not a WP:RS, and also fails to either assert, or support, the notability of crab juice outside of the episode.
- "Homer's Odyssey", New York Times - the only reference to crab juice in this article, which is a letter to the editor, is a one-line throwaway reference. It definitely does not support, or asset, the notability of crab juice.
- "The Dolphin Who Cried 'Mine'" - this article is a short fictional story and doesn't even refer to crab juice in any meaningful context with respect to the Simpsons. It definitely doesn't support, or assert, the notability of crab juice.
- "Double Review: Crab Udon and Crab Shumai " - this is a self-published blog, and thus is also not a WP:RS. It also does not assert notability of crab juice.
- "Restaurant review, Aristo , Torrance, CA " - this is a user-submitted review of a restaurant, and thus is not a WP:RS, either. It also does not assert notability of crab juice.
- "Mountain Dew" - this is a link to another Wiki, and thus is definitely not a WP:RS.
"Chow Times - Prima Taste Singapore Chilli Crab recipe" - this a recipe which refers to crab juice as crab stock. It has absolutely no relation to the topic in the article, whatsoever.
"My eCitizen - Prima Taste Singapore Chilli Crab recipe" - see the above.
The remaining three references are all internal to Wikipedia, and thus are not WP:RS.
So, as we can see, there are literally zeroWP:RS which either assert, or support, the notability of this topic. Furthermore, most of these references should be deleted per WP:ATT, since they don't meet standards, anyways. --Haemo03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the assessment of all of those sources and stand by my "delete" for having no meaningful real world context. Jay3218303:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both terms (Crab Juice, Khlav Kalash) are in use, in print -- Virginia Law Weekly, New York Times, more. Meets WP criteria for "notable" and enough content to warrant their own articles (don't merge back to "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson"). Pay no attention to the Deletion Gestapo, who seem to think there is no place for trivia on WP. Lib0man16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that the term is used is not disputed, but there aren't articles about the terms, only article using the term. -- Whpq17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - WP says "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" -- it doesn't say articles about the term are necessary. 71.127.150.13018:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note the word "subject" in that sentence quoted. That indicates that the articles should be about and not just simply use term crab juice.
Comment - no kidding. It's ridiculous to claim that the Virgina Law Weekly record has anything to do with the topic of the article, and the other one is just a letter to the editor. It isn't aboutCrab Juice at all! It just mentions it - that's the very definition of a "trivial mention" - something which is specifically disallowed by WP:NOTE. --Haemo20:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the Merge. I don't think that we need an article for crab juice. Whats more, there are now 2 refrences to a Singaporean Chilli Crab recipie. What's that gotta do with a fictional drink?GavinTing15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Does not require their own articles unless they become a major running feature. Can easily be integrated within the main episode articles. The JPStalk to me22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles into The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson. That some gag on a very popular TV show got a little coverage doesn't mean it requires a separate Wikipedia article. A merge would save all relevant info & consolidate episode information. If either becomes a running feature, it may be reasonable to separate into a new article. — Scientizzle22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Yes, I've seen the episode. Yes, it was a funny bit. No, it's not notable enough to warrant its own article here. Also, Unencyclopedia is not a "reliable source" by any means, and should not be considered a reference. Pertinent info appears to already have been merged. Caknuck00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge both: Casual mentions in a single ep? C'mon. This takes inclusionism to the point of dementia. What's the entire basis for this article? Homer drinks a few cans of "Crab juice" in a restaurant, in one ep and one alone. Nothing more about this is known, nothing more is knowable. This is worthy of desperately combing the Internet for some sources, any sources, no matter how trivial or tenuous? Is there some monetary prize for the most Simpsons-related edits on Wikipedia or something? Ravenswing 13:54, 25 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.
Keep and cleanup. There are a number of sources already in the article demonstrating its notability. In fact, I volunteer to clean it up. --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Change to delete, I cannot see any way this is notable at this time. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the founder's article if there's not enough here. To support the claim that this is an "art movement", I want good sources talking about this as a movement and not just a one-time exhibition/prank by a small group of people. Friday(talk)14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, I did my best to clean it up. I removed the long quotes and promo material, organized the sources, and wikified it. There are no sources backing the claim that this is a movement per se, only that Welch is trying to start a movement. I think it's notable thus far just for the involvement of notable artists, so I stand by my keep. --Mus Musculus (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should be seeing this as a single exhibition, not a movement, then? Not sure how I feel about that- there are tons of exhibitions. Why not cover the relevant bits about individual artists in their own articles? Friday(talk)15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can somebody tell me what their pricing scheme has to do with the artworks? The most often mentioned point in these sources is the sliding scale pricing of these artworks. Is that of some relevance? The second most often mentioned characteristic of the artworks covered by the term that this article is about is "small." The artworks are not "monumentally" sized -- instead they are small. Are we being told anything about the visual art? Is this conceptual art? Is this performance art? Is this installation art? Maybe, maybe, and maybe. I feel that if they don't explain what they are talking about, then it is not up to me to guess what they are talking about. Either the art stands on it's own in visual terms, or the artist or his/her representative has to make an effort to explain the artwork in other terms. None of the sources explain any of this. The artist's so-called manifesto doesn't explain this. Consequently, the Wikipedia article doesn't explain any of this. Are there any cohesive qualities that join these artists and artworks together? Or just their sliding scale pricing and the small size of the works? Bus stop15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as section into Patrick W. Welch. Thanks to Mus Musculus we now have what would be a nice and sourced paragraph in the arcticle of the founder of this initiative. This would also allow for linking from other artists articles. --Tikiwont07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Response to above: How do you know it is an "important art movement?" Are you basing that on just what is available in the article and in the listed sources? I don't see how it is an "important art movement." But if you feel it is an important art movement, please tell us why you see it that way. Bus stop03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, it's Jreferee's cut-and-paste delete, which he's used in a number of AfDs. The words "art movement" are the only ones to change from citation to citation. Obviously the approach has limitations, which no doubt closing admins take into consideration when gauging the user's argument. RGTraynor 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I research the topic before I post my reasoning and in this case, there are not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. If you think there is, then list them in this AfD. If there are not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic, the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards, even if the topic is important, famous, or notable. -- Jreferee20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given your research, upon what basis do you consider this an "important" art movement if there are no actual sources good enough for verification purposes? Surely an opinion upon the one would have to rest upon the latter. RGTraynor 20:42, 26 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.
There is no assertion of notability of this organisation, this article reeks of original research and soapboxing, and it has been an unwikified textdump for almost a year now. I don't know what to make of this article. I don't see much salvagable content, and I doubt someone will be able to clean this up into something useful. AecisBrievenbus23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since it's been described as being very dangerous and appears to be in better condition than when it was originally nominated. I'd like to see some more information on what precisely it's done to be described as being so dangerous, but there's nothing wrong with what's here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an06:39, 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.
