Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 11 August 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as violation of WP:DECIMAL POINT - to do otherwise would not be rational. DS 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of 4[edit]

This is an incomplete nomination from an IP address, with reasoning stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 5: "And delete Square root of 4 as well, as it is just plain silliness. It is a waste of server space to create a page for every irrational number, and two for every rational number (2, square root of 4)." I think that's a bit too informal, but would instead express it is: I do not believe this article is appropriate, as it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of encyclopedic value. It might be best to join this with the Sqrt of 5 discussion, but giving the benefit of the doubt that there's something else about this that is notable, I'll put it on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 07:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect to 2 (number). I see no reason for this to exist as a separate article except in an attempt to make a point by the people trying to delete Square root of 5. —David Eppstein 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; the article is well written and well sourced, and the square root of four is inherently notable. Furthermore, the article cites several reliable independent sources that specifically discuss the square root of four, thereby estabishing notability. In addition, the article on 2 does not include anything about 2 being equal to the square root of four, so a redirect would be pointless (and as someone pointed out there already, when it was redirected there before, wikipedia is not a calculator). Dicklyon 07:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per David Eppstein. Tim Shuba 07:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and if there is anything worth saving just write it on the number 2 page. Brusegadi 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on folks. The joke is over. I think this article was written (only today) by User:Dicklyon to make fun of the debate about deleting the article on the square root of 5. His "Strong keep" !vote above is a parody of comments on that other deletion debate. A good parody too, even though I think he is parodying me in part. So it is a point, related to another debate. This article was originally a redirect to 2 (number) and it should be reverted back to that. Speedy close by reverting back to the original redirect. --Bduke 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Anyone who wants to enjoy the parody article, or compare it to square root of 5, can find it at User:dicklyon/Square root of 4. Dicklyon 08:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Williams[edit]

Allen Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There seems to be no particular reason why this man is especially notable. He's just a police officer who's been assigned, along with many others, to international operations. None of the cited webpages actually mentions him and a number are just generic government websites. -- Necrothesp 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article seems to be claiming some notability by saying he obtained important evidence in these massacres. Whether this is accurate will take further sourcing. Edward321 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability about him - The articles only talk about what the force did and not him specifically Corpx 06:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomOo7565 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly trivial coverage, fails WP:BIO, no significant awards, honors or biography published by significant secondary sources. Fails notablility. Dreadstar † 05:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, at least as far as a free-standing article goes. But if anyone wants me to restore for a merger, that is also acceptable under the circumstances here.--Chaser - T 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Oddy[edit]

Michael Oddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. The first leader of the Green Party of Nova Scotia that is documented is Nick Wright. Delete.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Oddy (1st nom). GreenJoe 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could some more knowledgeable individual please indicate how he could have been the leader of a party before it was officially formed? CJCurrie 22:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a list such as Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was leader of the provincial Green Party before the party was officially registered, so in some articles he is called interim leader. He received a fair bit of press coverage in 2005. [1] [2]. --Paul Erik 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He is mentioned in some news articles, but there isn't enought WP:RS material to develop a Wikipedia article on this topic. Fails WP:N. Now, if this were Michael Oddy who made it to the 1963 British Open squash championship ... -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jreferee. Jauerback 14:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jreferee. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - anyone who was leader of a local party, even in the interim, and has mention in newspaper as a reliable citation should be kept. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no proof that he was the leader. GreenJoe 15:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was leader of the Green Party before they were officially registered. Here is a newspaper editorial from 2005 identifying him as leader of the Novia Scotia Greens.[3] Also, could you please specify what WP:NOR concern you have with the Michael Oddy article? --Paul Erik 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia should not tell people who to vote for; therefore, if it has and article on one candidate it must have one on all.Zginder 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the above comment misstates the position. Wikipedia is not part of the electoral process, even if some politicians try to make it so. People get articles because of their individual notability not because they are standing against a notable person. In the UK we get all manner of nutters standing against well-known figures - on this logic all such oddballs would get their own article. In this case there is no sound evidence of achievement (short-term interim leader of a party before its formation? I don't think so) or of sufficient significant secondary sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Nguyen[edit]

Robert Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A police officer who died in an accident. Tragic, but not particularly notable. And being the first member of a particular ethnic minority to serve on the police force of a particular city is not especially notable either unless it's a particularly famous police department. -- Necrothesp 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, it's always sad when someone dies, but although there are some ghits around, there doesn't appear to be an article-in-waiting here. Though I'm prepared to have my opinion changed. — BillC talk 23:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only truly notable for dying, which isn't worth including here. fuzzy510 07:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Terrace Elementary School (DeSoto, Texas)[edit]

Amber Terrace Elementary School (DeSoto, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable elementary school Chris 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP is not a directory of elementary schools Corpx 06:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are over 100 articles in the category "Elementary schools in Texas," some with much less content than this article. There is also a large category "Elementary schools in the United States" that contains 44 subcategories, so many elementary schools do have articles on Wikipedia. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a directory, but there is no rule that prohibits writing articles on elementary schools. --Acntx 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RBAP[edit]

RBAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Artices about Forum-Based roleplays or the sites that host them have been deleted in the past, and this one is no different. The main article for Avigamers was deleted, and that means that all the articles with avidgamers-based sites should be deleted as well. Besides, this page can contain no sources except for the actual roleplay site itself. Ageofe 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google appears silent on the issue. — BillC talk 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 06:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DaveApter 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJ Shea[edit]

BJ Shea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable, independent external sources for an article on a living person. Many statements made about his co-hosts that are not externally sourced. As far as notability goes, this article is about a DJ at a local radio station: there is no assertion of his notability outside his own town. Thus fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable radio personality. He has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources even if they aren't in the article. I haven't even read the article, and I don't listen to him, but I know who he is because I've read about him. SchmuckyTheCat
comment - can you provide these secondary sources for us to check? And are they outside of his local listening area? Upon looking through some search-engine results, I did see some stories about what he was fired for, the lawsuits that have been brought against him, and so forth. It's not pretty, but if those things got him coverage outside of his own listening area, or were otherwise notable, I would certainly be happy to ask for an early closure of this AfD so that I could add all that dirt into his article. Anything to make it different from the fan-club monstrosity we have right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is so important about "outside his own listening area"? His listening area is the Greater Seattle Metropolitan area, and into the rural parts as well. That's 4million people, the 14th largest radio market in the United States. His platform is one of the largest wattage stations in the market. He replaced Howard Stern and maintained Arbitron ratings for that time slot.[4]. He won 2006 "Best Local Morning Show" awarded by FMBQ. [5]. I listed two easy to find sources outside his listening area, but I reject that as a standard. SchmuckyTheCat
The article on Stern mentions the BJ Shea show in one sentence. As for the other, how does FMQB come up with those awards? And is it a good source? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the show article? I cant find any sources giving significant coverage to this person Corpx 04:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Vick[edit]

Katie Vick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a fictional, unseen character in a professional wrestling storyline. The story arc did not last very long and neither the character nor the storyline had any ramifications even within the professional wrestling world. Article is uncited and the subject is not notable. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not very familiar with professional wrestling, but this article doesn't seem to stand on its own. -- Irixman (t) (m) 23:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 06:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kane. I am surprised that this doesn't have many significant coverage as I remember this causing considerable outrage at the time due to it's tasteless execution (such as necrophilia can be covered in a tasteful manner). This should be merged as it was a very notable event (as a low point) in the history of the character Kane Irishjp 12:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The storyline is already mentioned in Glen Jacobs. That should suffice. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not in this detail with reference to the real world reactions Irishjp 09:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, we need not go into so much detail about this subject. A short phrase describing the storyline as "ill received" or "controversial" or something along those lines would suffice in the Glen Jacobs article. I don't think large amounts of text need to be merged from the Katie Vick article to that one. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DaveApter 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g7, author request, blanked by only contributor. NawlinWiki 00:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God I'm Gay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oh God I'm Gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article concerns an apparently non-notable podcast, and cites no third party reliable sources -- all of the references provided link to articles hosted on websites operated by Logo, the producer of the podcast. Furthermore, the article was written by Aliciaross (talk · contribs), who is almost certainly Alicia Ross, who hosts the podcast. An editor writing an article concerning her own podcast, and posting links to articles hosted on her employer's websites, presents serious conflict of interest issues. John254 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, no independent sources. If it weren't affiliated with Logo, I'd speedy it; I'll grant that asserts just enough notability to keep it clear.. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-blanked}}. Orig. author (and only contributor) blanked the page here. --Evb-wiki 00:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Key West, Florida and redirect.. CitiCat ♫ 01:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southernmost point in the continental United States[edit]

Southernmost point in the continental United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is probably the most confusing page I've ever read in my life. The page describes a "southernmost point" that actually turns out not to be the southernmost point! There are no other pages like this, and if the whole point of this page is to describe a fictitious southernmost point, then it should not exist. Jared (t)  23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion probably comes from the fact that this page has been repeatedly edit warred through out its history. It originally started out like this [6], then this was added later [7], and then this was added for good measure [8]. I had no idea that this was such a big deal, but apparently it is. But to the point, all the pertinent information about this is already listed in Extreme points of the United States, with Ballast Key and its reef bars listed as the southernmost point, so this page is moot. Delete (see below) - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Key West article has a small paragraph that easily sums up the entire page. A whole page on a buoy with an inaccurate claim is needless when it can be summed up in a few sentances. Ageofe 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and Merge into Ballast Key, which is the southernmost point in the continental U.S. as listed in Extreme points of the United States. Nice article, but like all other extreme points, needs to be listed by name of the place rather than by "....ernmost point". Redirect is the perfect answer, however, for persons doing a search. Mandsford 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect per user:Ageofe Corpx 06:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a highly notable tourist attraction, visited by hundreds of people daily. Whether or not it's real is irrelevant. It's a very notable attraction. - Marc Averette 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first and foremost, this article as it stands doesn't actually discuss the buoy itself. It may have started that way, but it has digressed into back and forth about the definition of "continental" and down to the meter commentary on where the southernmost spot really is. That information has been covered elsewhere. Now, that said, the buoy itself might be a popular stop by tourists on Key West. But is it notable on its own, or does it inherit whatever notability it may have from Key West? Thats the difference between people traveling specifically to see this attraction, rather then people traveling to Key West and happening to visit the buoy as they tour the island. If this landmark has notability on its own, and reliable sources can prove that, then this article may have legs yet. But massive changes will have to happen to the article, any discussion about the actual southernmost spot will have to be dropped, and the article will have to concentrate specifically on the buoy (history, etc) - all backed by lots of reliable sources. But as it stands now, there is nothing in this article that cannot happily live in Extreme points of the United States and Key West, Florida. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does now. I've added a history section - Marc Averette 20:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, I'm happy with the way this is going. I'm confident that a page about the buoy can stand up under scrutiny. Still needs some work, but change me to a Keep. Only one additional question remains - what is the actual name of the landmark? Is it really "Southernmost point in the continental United States"? Can we rename this article to be something like Southernmost point in the continental United States (landmark) to avoid discussion about the actual southernmost point creeping back in? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An encyclopedic geographical topic (even so that the geography is incorrect) and a heavily visited tourist attraction in south Florida. There's too much topic specific information in the article to merge. --Oakshade 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Key West, Florida. Peterkingiron 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Key West, Florida article already has the information; this article is redundant. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge Per the information already existing. Unless there is coverage of this specific concept, then it has no need for a seperate article. i said 06:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe a few lines in Key West and United States of America-- it's not worth all this verbiage. Mangoe 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Move per Mandsford Computerjoe's talk 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any relevant information can be rescued and added to other articles as suggested above. Frankly, the sources are too thin - one is a blatant advert and another doesn't support what it is citing. Most of the key content is unsourced. Insufficiently notable. TerriersFan 01:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is well-known tourist destination. Mark in Historic Triangle 03:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and TerriersFan Harlowraman 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Key West, or Delete altogether. J-stan TalkContribs 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Elementary School[edit]

Bennett Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

pretty article, but not notable Chris 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP is not a directory of elementary schools Corpx 06:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:29, 13 August 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. Singularity 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges Gardens State Park[edit]

Hodges Gardens State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability, and seems to be promotional SamBC(talk) 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly large (4700 acre) state run recreational park. Yeah, it's clearly not a hub of excitement, but it seems notable enough. - Richfife 22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All state parks are self-evidently notable. RegRCN 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Never even thought of this as promotional. The state of Louisiana took over this former private park in April 2007. This short article simply tells about the park and has a paragraph on its history. This article is intended to replace the earlier Hodges Gardens, Park and Wilderness Area, which was written before the state took over the park. Billy Hathorn 15:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not opposing a keep now (nor advocating it), but I should point out that, in that case, the older article should perhaps have been moved? SamBC(talk) 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aaahhh... I'll try to merge it when I have more than 60 seconds available in a row. - Richfife 17:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep State parks are notable, particularly this rather large one. --Oakshade 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as mentioned above, state parks are notable. I don't see anything promotional about this article, either. It isn't a commercial enterprise, so any promotional material isn't going to someone's profit. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Mine the play[edit]

Mother of Mine the play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be notable (based on article) and seems promotional. SamBC(talk) 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Creator's username seems very (very!) close to name of playwright. SamBC(talk) 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a easy A7, gone Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carman Trails Elementary School[edit]

Carman Trails Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notability Chris 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is nothing in the article that points to notability of the subject. Essentially this, and hundreds of articles like it, amount to little more than vanity pieces. --Stormbay 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of sources and WP is not a directory of elementary schools Corpx 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia:Notibility, due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources; very few Google returns. Dreadstar † 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone wants to create a redirect that's fine though. Wizardman 01:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Springs Elementary School[edit]

Linton Springs Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability, and we don't tend to extend the same assumption of notability to primary/elementary schools as we do to secondary/high schools. SamBC(talk) 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallstreethotrod 02:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I disagree with the view that primary schools have no significance or notability. Wikipedia allows for articles on small towns and these schools represent these towns. In fact, there are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia documenting elementary schools. Moreover, this article is in a template format, has a template box at the top, there are external links to the article, it is categorized, there are images of the schools, and it contains well documented references.[reply]

  • Do any of these references indicate notability in line with the policy. SamBC(talk) 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is probably a good elementary school. However, there is no level of notability that would justify an article. We should not lose sight of the fact that these articles are a type of vanity piece and, unless they are doing something notable that other schools are not doing generally, they do not rise above that level. Most leave via the prod route. --Stormbay 02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallstreethotrod 03:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Given the responses that I've read, it appears that we suffer from a philosophical difference. I didn't write this article as a vanity piece. To me, and others, it is notable because it is a part of our state, a part of our educational system, and part of our community. I do not think that being a player on a sports team gives one notability. Yet I have refrained from tagging these articles for deletion. My interest is local institutions, such as schools and politicians. And I know that I am not alone because my articles have plenty of logs noting additions. If these articles come under attack, then I only think it's fair to launch of blitz to help rid Wikipedia of its "unnotable" sports figures, such as footballers and basketball players. I am not saying this as a threat, but merely to make a point. Is the scope of notability limited to some tragic event, the location of a movie, or to some higher global significance? Many editors seem to feel it their duty to rid Wikipedia of local content, which is where I find fault.[reply]

  • I would firstly enjoin you to read WP:POINT — doing disruptive things to make a point is something of a no-no. I, personally, agree about sportspeople, but there are specific notability guidelines for them that specify their criteria for notability, and the vast majority meet it. If you don't like policies and guidelines, try to build consensus to change them, but in this case you're likely to have a very hard time doing so. SamBC(talk) 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no presumption either that secondary schools or notable, or that primary schools are not. There has been no consensus about general policy here, and so they each go upon their own merits. many high schools articles in WP either show notability or material can readily be found that will show it--most elementary school articles as usually written do not show it. The factors affecting notability for schools are often (unofficially) considered to be notable alumni, notable awards in academics or athletics, involvement in public events, historical significance of the school or the building, or other information making them of some interest outside the immediate community. Articles giving directory information only do not show notability, and that is the case here--a description of the year-to-year school enrollment based on primary sources is not encyclopedic information. DGG (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and no notability established for this school Corpx 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wallstreethotrod 13:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I did some research to find any significance to the school. I found that in 2006, a teacher at Linton Springs was 1 of 2 in the county removed for violating a state policy of copying states exam, distributing the information, and teaching the answers ahead of the exam. This story made the news on WBAL Channel 11 in the Baltimore area, as well as WTOP in the Washington D.C. area. Does this give the article footing?[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Singularity 03:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greystoke (band)[edit]

Greystoke (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC Jvhertum 22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horrors of War[edit]

Horrors of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to demonstrate notability, and seems promotional. SamBC(talk) 22:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If backed up by references, it would be notable. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Here's an AintItCool review if that helps: ouch. - Richfife 22:58, 12 August 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.

I am trying to be constructive and add information and sourcing to this notable Nazi Zombie film's article. I will fight against efforts to delete the article. I intend to improve the quility of the article about this notable film. Please post issues on the article's talk page. Do not simple try to delete information from the article. ZombieHorrorMovie13 16:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Singularity 07:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creators of Intense Art[edit]

Creators of Intense Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Csphdmoney 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Long standing and they did publish their artwork, but no assertion of notability and no secondary sources. The Null Device 10:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Creators of Intense Art was always one of the top three contenders during the heyday of ANSI art, and has been featured in works such as BBS Documentary, the Dark Domain collection (ISBN 0-9746537-0-5), and the recently published Freax book (ISBN 978-3981049411), to name a few. The organizer of the group, Andrew Bell, now of Creatures in my Head fame, is even cited as a source for the ANSI art section of the book Cyberpl@y by Brenda Danet, pages 236-240. If these aren't "reliable sources" on the subject, I don't know what is. --Sodium N4 09:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sodium N4.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sodium N4. --Myles Long 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. // Gargaj 02:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the points raised Sodium N4. It can be argued that these computer art organizations were rendered extinct as a result of the uprise of the modern internet, and I believe that groups such as these are worthy of encyclopedic note; this one especially, given its near decade-long existence. Yamaguchi先生 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sodium N4. bbx 07:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Haven Elementary School[edit]

Glen Haven Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

some little kid spent a lot of time on this, but sadly, it's not notable Chris 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (of elementary schools) and nothing really sets this one apart from any other elementary school Corpx 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Bible Church of Jamestown[edit]

Grace Bible Church of Jamestown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to demonstrate notability, and seems possibly promotional. SamBC(talk) 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no notability established - looks to be your average church Corpx 06:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran O' Connell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ciaran O' Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced bio of a student with an interest in politics. Non-notable. IrishGuy talk 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. He may well be active in his party, but he hasn't been elected to any public office. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per very narrow scope of popularity Corpx 06:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete

subject is an election candidate, clear precedents exist of non-elected persons holding wiki pages - here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoin_%C3%93_Broin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Boyd_Barrett On that basis the page should not be deleted. The fact the subject is a "student" is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natexe (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Not won any election for a position in public office, and I think that having read the two examples that have been given as a precident, at least one of them should be nominated for deletion also due to lack on notability. Irishjp 12:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:BIO, WP:SOAP and WP:N. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor reason for exclusion or inclusion. I have been an unsucessful candidate for local public office, and have been a Democratic Party official for a decade now, but I am not notable for those facts. Bearian 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Berian. GreenJoe 21:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. I wish this person well, but the subject does not currently meet our WP:BIO standards. Yamaguchi先生 04:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaici[edit]

Itaici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to be notable (from article content), unreferenced and thus lacking verifiability. SamBC(talk) 22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to prove notability. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension Elementary School[edit]

Ascension Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

vanity page, no real notability Chris 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (of elementary schools) Corpx 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 03:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grossberg Circuit[edit]

Grossberg Circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be another one made up one day; no references, no context, etc, but speedy contested (not entirely properly, afaict). SamBC(talk) 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When it's published in a scholarly, peer reviewed publication, we'll talk. - Richfife 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is a component of Grossberg's Algorithm (article also under AfD) - the entire collection seems to be heavy original research and completely fails WP:V. Speedy contested with This is currently under review from Vanderbilt University and needs a chance before you just summarily delete it. Having it peer-reviewed is a great first step, but thats only one of many steps to the path of verification and notability. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To author: please see WP:OR and wait till your theorems are published prior to using wikipedia as a publisher of original thoughts, as WP:OR explicitly forbids it. Tendancer 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Gandalf61 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of chefs[edit]

List of chefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated per WP:LISTCRUFT - namely:

  • The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - There are little to no summaries of listed articles; several are also redlinks.
  • The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - In addition to listing chefs, the list also accepts entries for noted gastronomes. There is no distinction for living, dead, nationality, gender, or even "real"; fictional chefs like the Swedish Chef are also on the list.
  • The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.

Most of the notable entries on the list are already in Category:Chefs, so having this list around really isn't necessary, productive, or efficient. Therefore, I propose the article be deleted. Sidatio 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Definitely a job for a category. - Richfife 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, particularly the unlimited/unmaintainable aspects. The inclusion criteria (just being called a "chef") is far too broad. ◄Zahakiel► 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nomination is wrong, there are plenty of annotations, and fictional chefs are in their own distinct "fictional chefs" section. Kappa 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oddly, there's a category, but it's limited to "American chefs". Leave this up until we get a category that recognizes that the blue-linked chefs aren't limited to the USA. I can't agree that this is unmaintainable, nor that the inclusion is too simple. Nobody is going to make it on to this list simply by grilling hamburgers over the weekend. Mandsford 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Decent arguments, but the list is still far too open-ended to be maintainable. Regardless of whether or not the fictional chefs have their own section, they're still included on the list. That just adds to the incredible amount of maintenance this list would require. Also, it's not just chefs on this list; it also allows notable gastronomes, which can apply to a wide range of people in a wide range of professions. Further, the list doesn't distinguish based on any other criteria as outlined above - living, dead, male, female, American, Spanish, whatever. All one would have to be is a notable chef, and with a large amount of culinary publications, shows, and other notable sources available, it's definitely an issue. It just doesn't conform to WP:LISTCRUFT, and would take an unreasonable amount of work to do so - especially when categorization is a far less-intensive alternative. Are there any arguments that would address those important issues? Sidatio 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK WP:LISTCRUFT is not a guideline, it's just POV deletionist bullshit do not lie about what it is. Kappa 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please try to be more civil with your comments; it is perfectly reasonable to point out that WP:LISTCRUFT is, in fact, an essay that reflects the views of its author and not the Wikipedia community. It is, however, not necessarily to call that author's opinion "POV deletionist bullshit." Thanks for your contributions and for your participation in this debate. Best, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that that author chooses to insult other members of the community and misrepresent their motives. It's doubly unfortunate that other editors follow this lead. Kappa 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a perfectly reasonable essay against far too open-ended lists "POV deletionist bullshit" is just pointless. And in this case it feels like someone's being a very black pot. Everything that is short of keeping for lack of proper policies to ruleslawyer isn't rabid deletionism.
Peter Isotalo 10:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful step towards the development of further articles. This is one of the recognized functions of Lists in WP. DGG (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of loosely associated topics and should be replaced with a category. We do not need infinite lists of people by profession Corpx 06:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists are useful in some cases, but category suffices here. Create a category for fictional chefs as well. Besides, I don't see any red links, so the usual "it encourages creation of new articles" argument is not valid here. utcursch | talk 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you force users to play retarded guessing games instead of helping them to find articles of interest? Kappa 08:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmanagable category-ish list. Lists need to be far more specific since there must be thousands and thousands of chefs suitable for articles, whether they be living, dead or fictional. Peter Isotalo 10:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it just me, or does it seem like every time I nominate or endorse the deletion of a list, I get a heapin' helpin' dose of incivility? I'm starting to see a pattern.

For starters, my apologies - I'm still a little new here and I didn't realize that WP:LISTCRUFT wasn't policy, per se. (You'd think I'd notice the big box at the top of the essay, but there it is.) I think those are pretty efficient guidelines, but that's another argument. It also doesn't change the fact that the article is inherently unmanageable per the arguments outlined above; primarily its maintainability, an issue that still doesn't seem to have been addressed. Further, I wouldn't exactly term myself "deletionist". I did, after all, chime in to keep such articles as the Stanford Mendicants and put my reputation on the line for a hip-hop clothing company I had never heard of before. For someone who wants to keep so many articles, Kappa, one would think you'd be an ace researcher. You may want to research a person's contributions next time before you go slinging names.

Anything further about my views toward articles, intelligence level, or pants size can be discussed on my talk page. Oh, and Kappa? Please don't edit my comments in the future without informing me. Thank you. Sidatio 11:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were a deletionist, please try to follow the discussion. Kappa 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you're not denying that you edited his comments. Needless to say, that's a no-no, and I'd be more pissed than Sidatio if it happened to me. Not saying that you did it, but IF you did (easy to check) you owe the guy an apology rather than a smart remark. I like that you're trying to defend articles, but we defenders need all the help that we can get. Dial it down a few notches. Mandsford 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding editing his comments, I don't know how that happened, I may have done it by mistake, perhaps I hit ctrl-x instead of ctrl-c. I apologize for my carelessness. Kappa 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those interested, I've opened up a discussion on whether or not it is prudent to make an official policy or guideline to be used in regards to the creation and retention of lists:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: All right, Kappa - relax. It's just an article - no one's trying to take your house. Mandsford and Phirazo are offering you sound advice - you might want to take it. Sidatio 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What people are trying to do is give me a shitty encylopedia where I have to play retarded guessing games to find the articles I am looking for. In the process they are wasting all the time I try to put in to make something better. Kappa 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore they continuously prove they lack the ability for even grasp the problem, like this vote from Phirazo, and the one below. Kappa 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are correct, I do not "grasp the problem". What kind of "guessing games" are you referring to? --Phirazo 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why anyone would want a random article on a chef, but even if someone would want one, I have trouble understanding why this would be more difficult with a category rather than a list. The list would be subject to all the usual nonsense of undue weight, incomplete listings, nationalist enthusiasts, etc. The category would be far more difficult to corrupt by POV-warriors and vandals and would certainly make the randomness easier to achieve. Peter Isotalo 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what Category:Japanese chefs looks like, and here's a guessing game for you, you decide if it's retarded or not: What style do they cook? What countries do they work in? What are they most famous for? Who has an international chain of restaurants? Who is known for inventing a style of sushi?
Chen Kenichi
Chen Kenmin
Hanaya Yohei
Yutaka Ishinabe
Toshiro Kandagawa
Masahiko Kobe
Harumi Kurihara
Nobu Matsuhisa
Rokusaburo Michiba
Masaharu Morimoto
Koumei Nakamura
Hiroyuki Sakai
Yūji Wakiya
Tetsuya Wakuda
Roy Yamaguchi
Kappa 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe problem is, this list isn't really useful for navigation that way. The majority of the entries in this list are simple blue links, and the scope of this article is so large it is infeasible to expand to include short information about each chef. Besides, you can look at the leads of those articles, which are generally short enough to get an idea of why that chef is notable. --Phirazo 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, you don't expect people to guess which chefs they would be interested in from the name, you want them to plow through the entire category of Japanese chefs. 15 Japanese chefs... incredibly tedious but I guess some people would try. 110 American chefs... Kappa 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kappa, we can't facilitate a summary of every imaginable search parameter for every imaginable subject just because it is deemed "useful". Even general encyclopedias require a minimum of effort when it comes to searching, and demanding that people actually read articles doesn't strike me as being particularly unreasonable. Articles are in themselves summaries of existing knowledge and are suppose to contain at least one summary in the form of the lead (more if there are sub-articles). How many summaries of summaries of summaries do we actually need?
Peter Isotalo 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we can't have "every imaginable search parameter " for chefs, maybe we could have 1 though? You need a summary of articles when it becomes incredibly tedious and a great waste of bandwidth to read through every individual article's lead. No-one would actually do this, whether it's reasonable to ask them to or not, especially if their search criteria is something like "earliest chef per country" which would be mine. Note that the number of "summaries of summaries" needed decreases exponentially so the answer is "not many". The category system can actually handle it reasonable well above a certain level (not this one). Kappa 10:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This is a redundant, unmanagable list. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's not trivial information as it does categorise people in a useful way (by occupation), but then again it could just exist as a category.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category. We have plenty of categories of "nationality + profession", and there doesn't seem to be all that much extra data that can be added to this list, or a meaningful ordering other than alphabetical. Note that changing a list to a category is not a loss of information (if done properly). >Radiant< 11:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The meaningful order is either by country or by year of birth. See my "guessing games" comment for what other information can be added, some of it already has. Changing a list to a category not only destroys information, it distributes it into tiny chunks (e.g. category:Swiss chefs with one member) when they could all be accessed from the same page. Kappa 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The ideal long-term solution for this would be technical changes to the category implementation: the ability to view all subcategories and category members "flat" -- all on one page); and category-specific searching ("Armenian chefs AND (1800 births to 1900 births)"). But that solution is necessarily in the programmers' hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose (talk • contribs)
Comment Which consensus? Surely you're not talking about consensus so far on this list, right? Sidatio 03:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Kappa 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on list of Poles. Do try to follow the discussion. Kappa 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So, you're trying to use consensus from a completely different discussion, then? Would you mind explaining to me how that works? You see, I was under the impression that each AfD was a separate case. Sidatio 11:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I see following discussions is a big challenge for you so let me try to make it really really simple. Phirazo says "there are far too many notable chefs for this article to be maintainable or complete". There are more notable Poles than notable chefs, so by this logic "list of Poles" should be deleted too. Phirazo should either tell me he also thinks "list of Poles" should be deleted, or give a reason why this list is different from that one. If he does neither he is a hypocrite. Kappa 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the fallacy in your argument - there are more notable listed Poles than listed chefs. Just because they've yet to make the list doesn't mean there's less notable chefs ("and others noteworthy for their culinary skills") throughout recorded history than notable Poles.
Following a conversation isn't anywhere NEAR as difficult as following your version of logic. Also, are we ever going to see any civility out of you? Acting like this isn't winning you any arguments. Sidatio 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK let me see if I've got this straight. The reason list of Poles is being split whereas list of chefs is being deleted is that there are fewer notable Poles throughout recorded history than notable chefs? Kappa 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love how I become the focal point of these discussions. Of course, it must be my fault that happens.
Now, from what I understand, there is a discussion on whether or not splitting the list of Poles is prudent - and to be quite honest, it's not much of a discussion, nor does it seem much has been decided. Further, what works for one article may not necessarily work for another. If you propose to split this list, how would you split it? Are we narrowing it to just chefs, or are we still including "others noteworthy for their culinary skills"? What, exactly, does that last criteria entail? If the list is split into, say, nationality, would these new lists have enough entries to remain viable?
Perhaps you should try answering these questions rather than ranting on about what's happening at another article, or trying (poorly) to warp the discussion to suit your point of view on the matter. Sidatio 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"ranting on" "warp the discussion"... these are civil comments? Hmmm
Anyway I'm glad you asked those questions, it seems like you are actually open to the idea of a split, maybe you could have mentioned that before nominating the article or at the same time. If I was allowed to split out the largest nationalities they would make viable lists and the remaining list would be considerably smaller. If you demand that the list be split into one list per nationality then no, most of them are not viable they have 1-3 members apiece. If you like we can drop "others noteworthy for their culinary skills" and simply define chefs as "members of category:Chefs". Kappa 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. After splitting, there really wouldn't be enough left over to justify an index list for the resulting viable sub-lists. You'd get, what, 3 viable sub-lists? American chefs, Japanese chefs, and maybe fictional chefs? Sidatio 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that the other national lists would stay part of this one until they grew.

Kappa 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the logic in that. Instead of making one more anemic article (or, in this case, one more anemic list), why not take, say, Scottish chefs and bolster the Scottish cuisine article with a significant write-up of their contributions to their regional fare? I don't see much of a point in letting information languish in the hopes of future expansion when that information can benefit an existing article. Why have a list simply for the sake of having a list? Sidatio 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sidatio how many times have I asked you to follow the discussion now? We don't have the list simply for the sake of it, we have it so that people don't have to play retarded guessing games when they are looking for articles about chefs. Kappa 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree, please try to be more civil with your comments, Kappa. Just because people disagree with you does not mean that they are morons, which seems to be how you are treating those of us who disagree with you. Also, I would say that the argument "well, here's what's being done to this other article" does not hold water due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which has already been cited here. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend actually reading and trying to understand policies instead of just remembering the names. You will notice that we have made some great progress in clarifying Sidato's rationale for deletion via this comparison. Kappa 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though Kappa may be less than eloquent in his presentation of his arguments, I believe he does raise good points. The list is far easier for readers to navigate than the categories, and after all, isn't Wikipedia ultimately for the reader, and not for the editors? Wikipedia:Categories vs lists gives several advantages that lists have over categories, as well as the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, which also says that "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." WP:LISTCRUFT does not have consensus as policy nor guideline, and so does not represent a consensus to delete articles which it may describe. Nevertheless I fail to understand why this particular list even would be considered "listcruft". What exactly does it mean "The list was created just for the sake of having such a list"? Are you saying there is no possible use for a list of notable chefs? If that were true then Category:Chefs would be just as useless. "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable"? How many notable chefs do you think there are? How many makes a list of them "unlimited" or "unmaintainable"? 500? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? Quick, using Category:Chefs, approximately how many articles about chefs exist on Wikipedia? Is it more or less than whatever magic number would make a list "unlimited" or "unmaintainable"? Since most gastronomes are probably also chefs, it makes sense to me to include them on this list, but even if not, that's an argument to create a separate List of gastronomes, or to include such a list in the Gastronomy article. Do you really think there are more notable gastronomes than notable chefs? Even if the number of notable chefs were too large for one article, it could be split into several lists (e.g. sorted by region or food style) if need be. "The list has no content beyond links to other articles"? This is demonstrably false; even as the list existed when it was first nominated for deletion, many of the entries were annotated; and Kappa has made much improvement in this regard. Someday perhaps Wikipedia will have a MediaWiki extension such as Semantic MediaWiki or WikiDB to make it easier to maintain lists such as these; until then, I see no reason to delete such lists simply because they are easier to delete than to maintain. Over 150 editors have been working on this list for nearly 4 years; that demonstrates a WP:CONSENSUS that people are willing to maintain this list, and it shouldn't be overrided by a handful of arguments in a 5-day AfD. Improve, don't delete. There is no deadline. DHowell 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Better, but still not enough in my opinion. As demonstrated above, splitting the list results in several very tiny lists and two or three decent-sized lists. So, splitting at this juncture doesn't really make sense. Also, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Categories vs lists is also an essay, just like WP:LISTCRUFT. To discount one is to discount both. As to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, it also states several disadvantages lists have to categories - most importantly in regard to size (A lengthy list may make a Wikipedia article longer than its recommended size) and maintenance (A full-fledged list (formatted, annotated, equipped with invisible links, etc.) would often require more maintenance effort than a category of comparable size.). A list with just one inclusion criteria - being a chef - will definitely require an inordinate amount of maintenance. As evidenced by the edit history you provided, it was very little more than just a list of links; only the Fictional Chef category was completely annotated, and those were just one-sentence blurbs.

Finally - if it's the consensus of the participating editors that this article is better maintained as a category, then that shouldn't be discounted either. After all, consensus can, and does, change. Sidatio 00:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum One more thing - it doesn't make sense to decry one essay with which you don't agrre and then quote several others because they represent your particular viewpoint. Sidatio 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the list results in one big list and two or three decent size lists. Kappa 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between WP:LISTCRUFT and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is that the latter is neutral content which can be edited and improved by anyone whereas the former is POV which is OWNED by the author (nonetheless managing to trick certain clueless newbies into thinking it is a neutral guideline). Kappa 08:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good (if not a little condescending, but what's new?), Kappa. However, if you'll note:


So, I can't see what you're going for with that statement. Sidatio 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention Wikipedia:Categories vs lists. What you quoted from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is about potential disadvantages of categories which get too big, and which can be solved by splitting them when they reach that point. Kappa 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grossberg's Algorithm[edit]

Grossberg's Algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Something made up one day, albeit not in school. OR, as evidenced by use of first person. SamBC(talk) 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until it's published, not before. - Richfife 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Possibly the Google:Cohen-Grossberg theorum. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cohen-Grossberg was first published in 1983. The content of this article clearly originates much later than that. - Richfife 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Obvious original research. No evidence at all that this has been researched, peer-reviewed or published in any way Apparently not related to Cohen-Grossberg which apparently has to do with the modeling of neuron networks, not static networks. Also note that the author created Grossberg Circuit and Grossberg Theorem, both related to this article and both also being considered by AfD. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As obvious a case of violating WP:OR as could be found. Tendancer 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, unencyclopedic style and obviously OR. Gandalf61 10:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren crimmins[edit]

Lauren crimmins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence to support claims of notability. SamBC(talk) 21:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm sure the dogs produce a lot of sh*t, but that's not a reason to send it to Wikipedia. - Richfife 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googled her. No hits corresponding with movies mentioned. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Read WP:GOOGLEHITS Malinaccier. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDB's never heard of her either, if that helps. SamBC(talk) 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find any information on her or the movies. Fails WP:BIO. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found to give notability Corpx 06:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's School (Boise, Idaho)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Mary's School (Boise, Idaho) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable elementary school Chris 21:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (of elementary schools) 06:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Boise, Idaho per locality guidelines, there is insufficient content to warrant a full-fledged article. Yamaguchi先生
  • Redirect per the above. --Myles Long 22:16, 17 August 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. the wub "?!" 10:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourn Village College[edit]

Melbourn Village College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not actually a college, or even a high school. Does not meet notability requirements. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Daniel J. Leivick 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of High School? And please could you specify which notability requirements it should, but doesn't meet? This is a large secondary school covering a large part of Cambridgeshire.  Tiddly Tom  21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In US terms this is a high school. TerriersFan 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand these debates. It is clear that 2ndary schools are notable. Wikipedia defines [[secondary school]s. It takes the same amount of time to improve these articles as to debate their ambiguous notability. The article now has a ref and has lost a template. Your choice is whether to reply to this note or contribute to the school article. Go om! help them! Victuallers 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This is equivalent to a high school in the American sense. There is no consensus that all secondary schools are notable, and saying there is will not make it so until people here generally agree, which they clearly do not. That's what consensus means. They are notable if there is something distinctive worth of attention from outside the school, and the school dress code and the injunctions to pick up litter and keep left in the hall are not notable. (so many school article seem to emphasise the dress codes--it does give something to say when there is no other content, but I can not see why it is of encyclopedic interest except to the students, the parents, and the local shops.) In this case the notability is one professional athlete alumnus. There's no fixed guideline here but I think that one individual alumnus unless extraordinarily famous would not be enough. But if it's thought enough, or if he is considerer famous enough, then it might be notable. DGG (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I did minor cleanup on it thinking it was a college, but looking at the age group served, I saw otherwise. Delete unless sources are provided that show coverage Corpx 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep School article is immature and could develop. The link for instance to this "type of school" being unusual has not been emphasised - see Village College is not clearly made yet. Other opportunities may also be available. Victuallers 08:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fledgling secondary school article. Scribble Monkey 11:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above discussion, as a good starting stub. Not yet at the Heymann standard. Bearian 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thought it was recognised that Secondary Schools were notable. Though the terminology used is different (conforming to Cambridgeshire practice), it clearly is one. The article is poor, but that is a reason for tagging it for expansion, not one for deleting it. Peterkingiron 22:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs improvement, but what stub doesn't. There is already one notable alumnus listed and a reasonable amount of information for a stub. -- DS1953 talk 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per above disscusion.  Tiddly Tom  20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perfectly notable high school. The question is not whether notability is presently in the article but whether there are enough sources to make a notable article. In common with other high schools, there are. Keep and tag for expansion is the way to go not delete. TerriersFan 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd_E._Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Todd_E._Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO Article has been tagged for two months and contains no references establishing notability. Only external links provided are the individual's homepage links, and primary editor seems to be the bio subject himself. Tendancer 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a user wanted some recognition for their edits, and created a bio. •Malinaccier• T/C 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO - No sources proving notability Corpx 06:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, google search returns only trivial coverage, insufficient sources to establish any notability. Dreadstar † 05:43, 15 August 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 nom withdrawn. Singularity 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Klock[edit]

Lynn Klock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sounds like the résumé of a decent but not quite notable enough musician and teacher. The possible claims to notability lack independent sources. Sandstein 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Withdraw, the sources provided are (barely) enough for notability. Sandstein 05:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not proven due to lack of sources. I originally tagged this for speedy deletion, and the article has not markedly improved since. Realkyhick 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to keep. The New York Times review is enough to tilt the balance toward notability. Could still use another source citation or two, though. Realkyhick 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Professor of Saxophone at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst" is a sign of some distinction as a music educator; "Works written for Lynn Klock includd a work by recent Pulitzer Prize winner Lew Spratlan." is a sign of distinction as a musician. I think in combination they are enough. DGG (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Perhaps — if those statements could be verified. But there are no sources shown that verify this. Realkyhick 05:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per lack of notability. Being of professor on a topic is not automatically notable and needs more sources to prove notability Corpx 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some more sources to the article, including a (not very positive) New York Times review that (together with another one that I found references to but didn't find an actual copy of) pass WP:MUSIC #1, I think. But I'm more impressed by his list of students, many of whom have gone on to be prominent educators themselves. —David Eppstein 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. MrPrada 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Harbor Elementary School[edit]

Bay Harbor Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable elementary, there is no way every school in Miami deserves its own Wiki article Chris 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article has no sources, and the subject no clear notability, claimed or otherwise. Jakew 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that it's more notable than any other elementary school, and elementaries aren't inherently notable. Nyttend 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rarely, elementary schools have notability especially when they have no sources.--JForget 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:32, 13 August 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 nom withdrawn. Singularity 06:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Shurtliff[edit]

Laurence Shurtliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable person, only available source for article is a obit. Daniel J. Leivick 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, clearly notable. Part of the problem is a spelling issue. Many quality references use Lawrence instead or just the nickname. In any case nom withdrawn. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was a notable member of the Grateful Dead organization. More references can certainly be found among the many published works about the band, I unfortunately do not have them any longer, but hopefully someone with them can add them. If you google you will see that the obit was republished all over, including internationally by the BBC. Russeasby 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Laurence Shurtliff was the President of the the Grateful Dead's corporation - one of the largest continuously touring music groups in history - for 20 years after first being their touring truck driver for five years. He's been mentioned in detail in many of the numerous Grateful Dead-related books and biographies. This article is a stub - not a dead end (no pun intended). Stubs exist to be improved, not deleted because they're still stubs. In time there are plenty of references and a lot more biographical detail that can be added to this article. Jerry Garcia mentioned him in a 1972 interview in Rolling Stone. I don't have that reference now, but it will be found. Using his nickname, the Google search for +Ramrod +"Grateful Dead" brings up more than 11,400 hits. Google books search for the same phrase shows at least 11 books. And those two results are just with that one particular limited search phrase, not with proper research completed. --Parsifal Hello 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment at least a preliminary google search should be made for an apparently unsourced article before nominating it for deletion. It saves everyone's time.DGG (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've made some improvements. The article now has 6 in-line references, more biographical detail, and it turns out that Shurtliff was the co-producer of Jerry Garcia's first solo album, a most notable accomplishment indeed. --Parsifal Hello 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - aka RamRod is notable per his relation to the Grateful Dead rock band. --Tom 12:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Gizka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Team Gizka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I never saw the content of the previously deleted version, so can't speak to whether this iteration is significantly different than that one, hence no CSD for recreating deleted content. Regardless: this article is unsourced, reads like an advertisement for a fan-created mod. The list of cut content and program participants are non-notable trivia. Even the ETA is tenuous crystal ballery. EEMeltonIV 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. The sunder king 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability is established, and possibly, WP:SALT due to recreation without addressing concerns of previous AFD Corpx 06:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Przepla 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Foote School. Singularity 06:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foote School, New Haven CT K-9[edit]

Foote School, New Haven CT K-9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, orphan for a year Chris 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable primary school. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, no apparent notability. Jakew 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy convert to redirect. This is a redundant article. The "real" article about this school is Foote School. If it weren't for the ongoing AFD process, I would WP:Be bold and convert this article into a redirect to Foote School. --orlady 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another undistinguished school out of hundreds of thousands in the world. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Foote School, which contains the genuine article and demonstrates the notability of the subject. Yamaguchi先生 03:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:33, 13 August 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. Singularity 06:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Heights Middle School[edit]

Pulaski Heights Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable middle school Chris 21:16, 12 August 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. Kurykh 00:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Middle School[edit]

Hand Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, vanity page, violation of all that is good at the 'Pedia Chris 20:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, please, per nom. Also unsourced. Jakew 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is a Blue Ribbon school and a very badly researched nomination. It needs cleaning up and sourcing; neither of which are grounds for deletion and which will happen shortly! I have added other sourced evidence of notability to meet WP:N and WP:V. TerriersFan 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not poorly researched-as it was written, it was crap, and made no assertion of notability. My job extends to seeing if, as it is, something belongs on Wikipedia, not if it could be built into something better. Kudos for the cleanup, but that's the second time you've been rude today. Chris 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course it was poorly researched and the above comment was not rude but factual. Before submitting articles for AfD you should carry out some basic research to see if the subject is notable. Simply because an article is presently 'crap' is not a ground for deletion; it is a ground for tagging for sourcing, cleanup etc. We delete what, after research, proves not to be notable and we don't delete on the grounds that clean-up is needed. TerriersFan 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of nomination, it needed more than simple cleanup, as one can see from the history as of 12:34, 26 June 2007. It looks more encyclopedic to me now, but I do not have a strong opinion on whether the salient aspect of notability re Blue Ribbon School could not simply be part of a merged article for the regional system. Weak keep Milkfish 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I forgot to mention that the case of notability would be bolstered if the article had more than one link from the Main namespace (the list entry in the Richland County School District One article). Milkfish 02:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a further incoming link from the locality. TerriersFan 02:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the beauty of Wikipedia, you do what you think needs done, I do what I think needs done. I did and you did. If you want to do the basic research, have at it, but don't make up responsibilities for me. I am one of those who don't believe being a Blue Ribbon school confers automatic notability, so "basic research" and then being snarky about it is your chosen role. Chris 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TerriersFan, can you give any examples of independent sources that serve to describe the subject and establish notability? Jakew 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've seen similar debates involving Blue Ribbon Schools in which several have not opted to delete. Although alternately, the option MERGE also existed and it can be merged somewhat to Richland County School District One's. Also, looks respecting easily the WP:V criteria which forces me to say not to delete but at lease merge.--JForget 01:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Excellent work by User:TerriersFan to provide ample reliable and verifiable sources, including details of its recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, that clearly satisfies the requirements of the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Alansohn 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the notability of being in the Blue Ribbon Schools is unsettled--some debates here have ended in the conclusion that it was enough, and some have ended that it was not. Personally I do not consider being in the top 10% of US schools much of a distinction. However, i consider the Time article probably would be sufficient if it were directly cited.DGG (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW its the top 5%. I have added the suggested direct cite, and a supporting Time feature article. TerriersFan 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notaiblity. I do not believe Blue Ribbon/trivial mentions/letters to editor/cheesy awards for middle schools are a free pass to notability. Corpx 06:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article contains a variety of sources which verify content and establish notability per WP:V and WP:N. Could do with more detail but I see nothing seriously wrong with the article that makes deletion necessary. Camaron1 | Chris 11:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a result of superb work by TerriersFan to rewrite the article. I have to say that I find the School of the Year award a mediocre example of notability (surely an enormous number of schools have received some award or other). If the subject was more interesting, and if claim to notability were stronger (spontaneously exploding teachers or alien landings in the playing fields, for example), I would be more in favour. I regret that in spite of TerriersFan's work, I am more likely to remember this AfD than the article itself. Jakew 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep view - nice article, well written, stacks of sourced notability - seems clear. Bridgeplayer 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: WP:VANITY--WaltCip 14:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps you could explain how conceivably WP:VANITY applies to this article? There was some application to an early version but that material has long gone. TerriersFan 15:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm sure many editors know my general feeling on public school notability, a Blue Ribbon School is a unique and notable characteristic. The editors calling the sources all trivial seem not to realize that being such a school is more rare than one would think, for a national award. Even in rich white suburban districts, more than one blue ribbon school would be a rare occurrence indeed. VanTucky (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article demonstrates notability immediately as one of the top five percent in the nation, and provides a wealth of reliable third party sources thus meeting verifiability standards. Yamaguchi先生 04:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely well referenced, blue ribbon school... mentioned in Time Magazine by name... thats notability with a bullet.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Horry County Schools. Singularity 06:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forestbrook Middle School[edit]

Forestbrook Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, no matter who it's "runned" by Chris 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Horry County Schools. Singularity 06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Elementary School (Myrtle Beach)[edit]

St. James Elementary School (Myrtle Beach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability Chris 20:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Horry County Schools. Singularity 06:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seaside Elementary School[edit]

Seaside Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

sounds like fun, but not notable Chris 20:03, 12 August 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. I do, however, warn that incivility and personal attacks (irrespective of who said it or whether any were said) will be met with our full power of dissuasion from doing so. Kurykh 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate Systems[edit]

Eastgate Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable publisher. completely unsourced. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Established in 1982, Eastgate has published many of the key works in new media. They've been reviewed in the New York Times Book Review, the Washington Post, and most other major newspapers. They're regularly taught at dozens of universities throughout the world. The nomination for deletion comes out of the blue, without discussion and without making any effort to improve or extend the article. Keep. MarkBernstein 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incumbent on me to improve the article, it's incumbent on the creator to make it sourced and verifiable. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Despite the undeveloped state of the article, Eastgate was important in the deveopment of pre-web hypertext. The nominator claims no expertise in the history of hypertext pre-web. Since he is a legal intern for Wikimedia, I refer him to Mike Godwin, Wikimedia's current legal counsel, who in around 1995 thought that Eastgate style hypertext was sufficiently interesting to invite me to demo it to a class he was teaching at the time on New Media. --Pleasantville 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that the above editor has a close relationship with Eastgate Systems. Secondly, Mike Godwin, nor myself or my position have a thing to do with this deletion debate. I should note that the above editor has provided absolutely no actual rationale for keeping, nor any sources for the article, nor any evidence of notability, other than WP:ILIKEIT, and a fallacious appeal to authority. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can initiate a deletion debate and comment upon it and have nothing to do with it. Please explain. OF COURSE I have a relationship with Eastgate -- I say so. Do you know anything about this subject, i.e. pre-web hypertext? --Pleasantville 01:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more damning comment could be adduced by wikipedia's enemies than "no special knowledge is needed" to excise articles from wikipedia. To a reader of scholarly or inqusiitive mind, no further edit or discussion of notability is required, as any discussion of the history of literary hypertext or hypertext fiction will establish the facts. To intelligent readers, I commend Robert Coover's familiar NYTBR essays (1993, 1994), George P. Landow's HYPERTEXT: THE CONVERGENCE OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICAL THEORY AND TECHNOLOGY (Johns Hopkins Press, now in its 3rd edition), Michael Joyce OF TWO MINDS, J. Yellowlees Douglas' THE END OF BOOKS, Chris Funkhouser's brand-new PREHISTORIC DIGITAL POETRY (University of Alabama Press, 2007), Kate Hayles's WRITING MACHINES (MIT, 2005), or indeed just about any book, monograph, or essay on the history of hypertext fiction and new media in the past 20 years.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs).

This article is not about hypertext. Establishing the notability of hypertext has nothing to do with the complete lack of verifiability or notability in this article.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's comment was towards establishing the notability of Eastgate in the hypertext field, please read what he actually wrote. It assumes for the sake of argument that it is not necessary to establish the notability of hypertext itself, which you yourself note is appropriate. 203.30.247.18 07:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC) .. (oops, forgot to log in first)[reply]

  • Keep - the company is notable, even if the page does not currently reflect that. What is needed is more content towards that end. Calling for it's deletion isn't the way to do that, surely? It has not been sufficiently established that Eastgate is non-notable, only that you don't have any special knowledge on the matter -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, the page does need content supporting Eastgate's notability. Ericscheid 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you dislike Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policies, you need not stay here. Citizendium is that way. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if documented If the books cited do talk about this publisher in a substantial way, then they would be sufficient to show notability. Mark, could you supply page numbers? DGG (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not really sure why this debate is happening. Wikipedia policy states 'This page in a nutshell: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.' Picking through the page I can't see it is any different to the Springer_Verlag entry. It's also the case that the academic community centred around ACM SIGWEB / and Web research in general, without doubt see Eastgate as a notable publisher. --Siharper 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) — Siharper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • SPA account: Account was created today, and has 4 contributions, 3 of which are to this AFD. This account is likely to be an SPA or a sockpuppet. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 12:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above-mentioned edit was signed by Simon Harper. Professor Simon Harper is a Lecturer in the Information Management Group of the School of Computer Science at the University of Manchester, and is the conference chairman of the ACM Hypertext Conference 2007, to be held at the Manchester Museum in September 2007. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~sharper/ provides contact information and a CV. Harper is a familiar name to any researcher in the field. MarkBernstein MarkBernstein 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Dan, you're being rude. Why is it that anyone with expertise in this area who cares about the subject should be presumed to already be a member of wikipedia? It would be more polite to ask for further information about the person commenting than to make unwarranted accusations. Please assume good faith.

Your invitation that we all leave and go to Citizendium is also a breach of appropriate decorum, and seems to me to constitute a deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors. --Pleasantville 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and please don't edit my request for civility. I was unaware Denny wasn't your name when I called you that. --Pleasantville 20:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep notable, in fact very clearly changed the world with storyspace and tinderbox. that they are a leading publisher hypertext fiction should not be dismissed lightly either. the lack of verifiability is moot, as the knowledge documented there is widely known. oh... and if you wanted the article improved, then you should have marked it for improvement. if you want verifiable then mark it as such for a few months first and contact its prior editors. AFD is not an improvement process. --Buridan 13:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - anybody familiar with the field knows about the notability of the company. Buridan, you and I both know this stuff, but under Wikipedia's verifiability standards (which are not optional), somebody ought to dig out the texts cited above and get some page numbers to satisfy the issues raised; you're right, though, about improvement tagging rather than AfD nomination. Swat, you ought to catch your breath and reread the essays about civility in the Wikipedia project; your vendetta against all matters related to certain people is really reaching unreasonable levels and damaging the interests of this project, which is bigger than you. --Orange Mike 13:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a segment on Eastgate style hypertext on the show Imprint (TV series) circa 1995 which the flew me to Canada for. I'll see if I can dig out the reference. I'm sure Mark has a general bibliography somewhere, but the Imprint show may not be on it. --Pleasantville 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Clearly notable. Sourcing could be better, but sources are given. For events that predate the Web, you cannot really expect clickable links for all sources. --Stephan Schulz 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourcing seems to exist [9] and some are cited already. Do we have to go to Citizendium to have articles like this now? --W.marsh 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Seems like yet another of many examples of an AFD where article research and improvement would have been more helpful. -Harmil 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What's "per norm" supposed to mean? --Pleasantville 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's "per nom": roughly, 'in concurrence with the reasoning offered by the original nominator' (or 'in the original nomination'). --Orange Mike 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike, the article is now copiously sourced, including several references indicating notability (see, for example, the footnote I just added quoting Robert Coover in the New York Times Book Review). Do you still feel it should be deleted? --Jd4v15 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike was just answering my question. GreenJoe is the only one who's voted with the nominator so far. --Pleasantville 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. My apologies for the confusion. GreenJoe, if you're around, would you care to comment? --Jd4v15 06:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As noted above, clearly passes WP:N, and seems to have gained cites. Not sure why it was ever tagged for deletion instead of expansion; although the former clearly does have the effect of forcing folks to flesh out article, it's not worth the bad blood it creates. --Yendi 00:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. For reasons given above. Agree with Yendi, this should not have been marked for deletion. In general, as much damage is done to Wikipedia by uninformed editors assuming subjects are not noticable as is done by people trying to insert vanity pages. If you don;t know about it, give it the benefit of the doubt and.or ask other editors for advice.--Martin Wisse 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable (as Swatjester would have realized if he'd bothered to Google Eastgate first) and currently sourced. --Jd4v15 07:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article looks decently sourced (while a bit rough on the edges) and the outward hostility in this debate suggests this to be rather a personal than an issues debate anyway. The company and its activity (or, especially those) are definitely notable Wefa 02:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be notable and historically important. *Dan T.* 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm an associate professor of digital culture at the University of Bergen in Norway, where I teach hypertext literature, blogging and new media studies. Eastgate is an extremely important part of hypertext history, and is obviously notable. As far as I can see, the only argument for deletion is that it's not seen as notable by a person who admits to having no expertise in the field of electronic literature or hypertext history, and that it wasn't sufficiently sourced. Everybody else in this discussion argues that it IS notable. Surely the thing to do is to improve the article rather than deleting it?--Lijil 08:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - bluntly, the real reason for the nomination seems to be that one editor feels that all articles about anything associated with a certain person are merely advertisements for her and her interests, and must be purged; and anyone who defends such matters is just part of her posse coming to her defense. Since Eastgate is linked to her, therefore it must not be notable. --Orange Mike 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Mike, a small clarification: It's not just an editor being petty and unreasonable here; it's an administrator and WP intern. That makes the actions taken by him a lot less excusable. --Yendi 18:32, 17 August 2007.

(UTC) No personal attacks please. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make ridiculous assertions like that. When I made this nomination it had substantially less sources than it does now. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a personal attack: Yendi and OrangeMike are criticizing your role in instigating this regrettable situation. MarkBernstein 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a ridiculous assertion; that you're an admin and an intern are facts. And a lack of sourcing should, initially, be a call for an article to be expanded (thus the stub tag). Further, striking out what you disagree with is only slightly less conductive to debate than blanking it out. --Yendi 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted pedersen[edit]

Ted pedersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography of an associate professor at UMinn-Duluth, fails WP:PROF. Also there is a serious conflict of interest, and I suspect that the single purpose account who also edited the page, User:Schtickwriter, is another account created by the professor to avoid autobio concerns (and perhaps the IP as well). Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:PROF. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:PROF and also a WP:COI vio. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:N. His star may need to rise higher[1] to generate more reliable source material.
  1. ^ Thompson, Mary. (April 13, 2001) Duluth News Tribune UMD Profs honored as rising-stars; National Science Foundation awards bring $730,000. Section:Front; Page 1A.
-- Jreferee (Talk) 05:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Vladimir Ivanov II[edit]

Prince Vladimir Ivanov II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax, name gets ZERO google hits. Author has created other hoax articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Using directories and links as proof of notability for a website is analogous to using a phone book and the classified ads to prove notability for a person. No reliable sources about the subject have been presented. The forum thread linked mentioned a four page spread in PC Gamer UK, but they couldn't find it or cite it.-Wafulz 12:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simtropolis[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

AfDs for this article:
Simtropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. Claims to be largest fansite in its area, but fails to back up that claim with reliable sources. Previous AfDs closed as No consensus, and Keep when the only Keep arguments were I like it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, I am gong to say in advance it has been established before that a merger of this into another article (such as SimCity 4) is not appropriate - so if this article is removed it should be a simple deletion. Next, before this AfD was started I was beginning a re-wright of the article which aimed to address the concerns and to eventually replace the existing article - I might continue to work on this. However, the existing article fails WP:WEB and WP:V so I have no objections to deletion. Camaron1 | Chris 19:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. I have tried to find any reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject, but have been unsuccessful. Jakew 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For one, the article was severely cut before AFD, and these folks have had a significant say in the development of SimCity Societies. TheListUpdater 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability. Also opposed to merging fan site-cruft into the articles about the topic. Corpx 06:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The site has already been notified of this AfD and has begun canvassing for keep votes. ([11]) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Fredrick day 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we have an article on other fansites, what's wrong with this one? --User:Simfan34 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can call this canvassing, but I am a member and have made several edits.

Other articles exist is not a policy based reason for this artice to remain - as it current stands it does not have a single reference. --Fredrick day 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). --- RockMFR 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isnt notable enough and does not even have sources...maybe another time. BTW, Simtropolis actually posted on their website asking people to support the page. Yes, I am a member of ST (Username is JCarter) but I am opposed to keeping the page. Jgcarter 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simtropolis has over 180,000 registered users, and it's not notable enough? Willy888 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then those 180,000 people need to redo the page with reliable sources. Jgcarter 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sometimes guidelines like WP:WEB just don't cut it. Rules are made to be broken, etc. It's an extremely large, popular, and well-trafficked site. Lots of crufty crap should be flushed but this isn't cruft. It's a large enough subject that to not have an article would make Wikipedia remiss. SchmuckyTheCat
Yes. It's big. And I qualified why that is important for this article in that context. Do snarky pointers to miscellaneous guidelines invalidate my comments or was it intended to further discussion? SchmuckyTheCat
That a site is large and well-trafficked doesn't cut it. There are several computer games out there that have dedicated fan bases of many sizes. This doesn't make them notable. Show me a few non-trivial references to this site and I will completely change my position, but for now I can only say delete, no matter how well-trafficked. (By the way, please use four tildes to sign your comments so that we can see the date they were made) Gekedo 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Alexa and a directory of fansites are not reliable sources. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete - There are a few reasons to keep this page open. One of them is that new members and new owners to Sim City 4 need a resource page to guide them. Sometimes, they go to wikipedia.org and search for "Sim City 4". At the bottom of the links page is a link for Simtropolis. That fansite contains some of the the most wonderful content and downloads imaginable with Sim City 4. Another reason to keep it is because one might not understand what Simtropolis is, so they might go to wikipedia.org and type in "Simtropolis" in the search field. This page is therefore, relevant to many people, as hundreds of thousands of people own the game. With opinions of keeping the page, there is a reason I have read on the Simtropolis site that because Simtropolis is a fansite, it may not need a wikipage. That's fine with me, as that goes. -User:John94538 — John94538 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, non notable per WP:WEB. Dreadstar † 04:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep During this AFD, the article has been expanded with several sources and I believe that after this improvement, it now passes WP:WEB. Is he back? 11:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't pass WP:WEB. The only references to this site have been trivial, such as a directory on the EA site. Such references must be made from a non-notable search...I'm not being a policy lawyer here, but that policy is in place to assume that the myriad of fan sites out there can't get an article purely on the weight of a large fan base. Gekedo 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Although I'm not a fan of creating fansite articles, this seems to be at least bit notable and article doesn't look bad now, though references can be surely improved. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I noted on the talk page, this article's "What links here" is a dismal list of redirects and talk/user pages. Let's take another fansite..."Civ 4 Fanatics". It has resources, including a mod which made it "official". Many members...etc. The fact is the web is full of fansites which have resources, and are "important" to the community that they pander to. The fact is that this is a fansite for a game that is 4 years old. I made what I thought was a good edit to this article...pruning most of the chaff and cutting it down. An edit was made by an IP saying they would "restore the article to their former glory". In short, I think this article is being kept alive by a hard core of community members from the website...it's a close-knit place. But reality dictates we can't have an article for every good fan-serving site. Gekedo 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was interesting to note that before this AFD very few people were editing the article - it had changed little for over four months. Editing suddenly increased when a threat of an AFD appeared. Camaron1 | Chris 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem I have is that it comes across as effectively free advertising for ST. Somebody seeing the link on the Simcity 4 article could be forgiven for thinking it is the only good Simcity 4 community. No other community is given this privilege where there is no non-trivial references to back up the article. Gekedo 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheListUpdate, Willy888, and IsheBack's arguments. Either this article should be kept and rewritten or deleted, then rewritten as Camaron1 seems to have offered here and elsewhere to do. This site is very notable among the SimCity community, and even EA, Tilted Mill, and Monte Cristo (Cities Unlimited maker, unrelated to SC), seem to have acknowledged that fact by giving the site several interviews, exclusives, and mention. Put in better sources (I know they're out there somewhere!), and don't get rid of the article permanently. PoeticXcontribs 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Lyudmila[edit]

Lady Lyudmila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. Only 2 Ghits for "Lady Lyudmila" + Palikarski [12], 8 Ghits for ‘House of Palikarski’ [13] only all of which are Wikipedia or mirrors. Yahinovo, where they are supposed to be the heir, is only a village [14]. No sources are given – requested sources twice and the requests were deleted both times. Edward321 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Palikarski[edit]

George Palikarski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. Only 3 Ghits for ‘George Palikarski’ [15], 8 Ghits for ‘House of Palikarski’ [16] only all of which are Wikipedia or mirrors. Yahinovo, where they are supposed to rule, is only a village [17]. No sources are given – requested sources twice and the requests were deleted both times. Edward321 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat block[edit]

Sweat block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Antiperspirant product, doesn't assert notability, unreferenced, lack of third party sources, Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notability whatsoever. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like someone tried to use WP for promoting a product. Tendancer 00:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, nothing more than spam. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete JoshuaZ 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptiko[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Skeptiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article covers a blog with a podcast. The article itself is a list of external links to each individual podcast. (Update: the external linkfarm has been removed, though this does not allay my concerns about the notability of the subject.) The article does not assert its subject's notability, nor am I convinced that this is a notable subject per WP:WEB. I had previously prodded this but its original author contested the prod, so I am initiating this AfD. Antelan talk 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Skeptiko is noteworthy among the PSI and Parapsychology communities and often attacked by the Skeptical community. Similar skeptical podcasts (The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Skepticality) have similar Wiki entries despite having fewer notable guests. AD 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you note on your user page, you are the creator of the website in question. Regarding your arguments, they are both arguments to avoid. Noting that similar articles exist is not a reason to keep this article, but instead is a reason to thoroughly examine the others and see if they should also be nominated for deletion. If Skeptiko is noteworthy and the subject of frequent attacks from the skeptical community, then there should be plenty of third-party references to it; will you produce some? Antelan talk 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found to give this podcast notability Corpx 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Keep if sources are found, delete otherwise. Will change vote based on this. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I already listed a ton of psi-proponent and skeptic blogs and websites that link to Skeptiko on the Skeptiko discussion page: the daily grail, AMNAP, Michael Prescott's blog, the Public Parapsychology blog, Marcel Cairo's blog and internet webcasts, skeptigator, skeptics guide to the universe, skeptic's dictionary. Many of these sites link to Skeptiko on a very regular basis. Any google search will show the links. If you need something more specific than this, let me know.

Also, Alex did not create the skeptiko page, I did, and I am not affiliated with Skeptiko or Alex. Sdaconsulting 17:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to discuss details. The WP:WEB guideline is a good place to start. It says (emphasis mine):
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for: Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)
I don't see these non-trivial published works, independent of Skeptiko itself, that cover Skeptiko. I don't think they exist (though perhaps someday they will), so at the moment I don't believe skeptiko merits a Wikipedia entry. You also mentioned a Google search: There is no google hit policy (GHIT) per se. If you do want to look at google searches, you may want to revise the search from "skeptiko" to link:skeptiko.com. This leads to about 60 wordpress and blogspot blogs which link to the site - not sufficient to demonstrate notability.
That search misses a huge number of discussions of skeptiko. Sdaconsulting 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search, including a search of the archives, returns 2 results, both press releases from a firm called "PR Leap.com" that advertises itself as offering "free press release distribution" Again, I do not believe that this constitutes a notable subject, though it may certainly become one in the future. Antelan talk 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete What makes Skeptiko different from The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and Skepticality is that the latter are notable as official podcasts of already notable entities. Skeptiko needs to have been mentioned in magazines, newspapers, etc. to demonstrate its notability, or be the official podcast of something or another notable. I support a soft delete (meaning that the article isn't permanently blocked from re-creation) because Skeptiko appears to be fairly new and may gain notability in the future. The guests are indeed notable. What's missing is their mention of the podcast in their books or articles. Since that may happen, but hasn't happened yet, soft delete.--Nealparr (talk to me) 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and magazines? How quaint. Skeptiko is a podcast! Radin and Sheldrake mention Skeptiko on their websites, Sheldrake multiple times, and both are very notable figures. I haven't checked the others, but I expect some of the other notable guests of Skeptiko have also mentioned Skeptico. The bottom line is Skeptiko is one of the most important popular media outlets for the discussion of psi phenomena and parapsychology. Sdaconsulting 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Podcasts generally are mentioned in newspapers or magazines when they reach notability. That's not quaint, it's a measure of notability. I'm a fan of Skeptiko. When thousands of people like me tune in, it will be mentioned in print. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article at some point, just not yet. Give it some time and I'm sure it will. Soft delete. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also maintains other "quaint" traditions, such as requiring reliable sources. You've made multiple comments to the effect of "Skeptiko is popular", but you haven't demonstrated coverage by non-trivial published works, and you haven't demonstrated that the site has won a well-known, independent award. As I've mentioned before, this doesn't mean that the site won't become notable in the future, but by all appearances, this site - established in January of this year, with an Alexa rank of over 4 million - is not notable right now. Antelan talk 20:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one said the skeptiko website is notable or high-traffic compared to other websites. Red herring. The podcast itself is notable in the skeptical and parapsychology communities. The hundreds of online references to it, links to it, and discussions of skeptiko content make that clear. The podcast has been linked to and discussed by many of the very notable people who have appeared on it. Holding up an ironclad bar of dead-tree media or broadcast media mention is frankly silly in 2007. This podcast is very well known in the relevant communities I mentioned -- will anyone even bother to dispute this? Sdaconsulting 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What's missing is their mention of the podcast in their books or articles"

How about this? And this? And this?
Those are better sources. Are you confident they meet "Significant coverage"? WP:N --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. If anyone wants the content I'll be happy to userfy or move to project space. But this is not a proper article as it stands. Eluchil404 06:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC related topics[edit]

List of BBC related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article duplicates information already readily available in the BBC Category, as well as the more recent BBC WikiProject. TheIslander 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not just a bare list, but a fairly detailed one. It might be appropriate to move into the BBC Wikiproject space instead of deleting anyway, as it certainly looks useful to me. FrozenPurpleCube 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more info than available in a category. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, fair comments, but it seems to me that all this page is doing is merging info from the articles, which already exist, with a category page, which already exists. Yes, it's more detailed than a category page, but is it really needed? TheIslander 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really "not needed" ? Deletion of it won't serve any real purpose, I think, and I do think organizationally it does serve quite effectively, possibly better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category is more that sufficient in this case. Glossaries are not needed for something like this and a list like this is "not notable" Corpx 06:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may sound like a neat idea, but it's just another unnecessary list of information that would need to be updated and maintained. The category suffices - if you want to know more, read the article. fuzzy510 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, how do you feel about moving it to the BBC Portal? Oh, and I've notified WP:BBC about this nomination so they can say their position. FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for that - should really have done it myself, seeings I'm currently active within it, but just clean forgot. As for moving it, I still uphold that it's obsolete, and just duplication of information. TheIslander 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as somebody who knows next to nothing about the BBC, I consider it at least reasonably more informative than a category, thus I consider it multiplication of information. (ow, ow, ow, bad pun, bad pun...) It terms of it being obsolete, obsolete compared to what? The Portal? Not really an improvement either. It looks nice, but I think it could use something like this to inform us folks who don't know what's what. FrozenPurpleCube 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Obsolete compared to the category or WikiProject in conjunction with the relevant articles. The contents of the list is odd, too. Yes, you've got the main BBC articles in there, but you've then got a small smattering of programmes that are aired on the BBC (not even particularly notable ones), and then a few completely random articles, such as Crown Castle UK, which yes has a slight connection with the BBC, but it's obscure, to say the least. It also seems to me that this list is anything but exhaustive - of course, neither the category nor the Wikiproject are exhaustive, but I feel they're much closer to the mark. I dunno, this list just seems, well, obsolete. I clearly won't be gutted if it's kept, but I don't see a need for it. TheIslander 17:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I do see that the list could be considered incomplete. But since the category and the Wikiproject aren't complete either, I think the maximum benefit is to use all existing valid information. I don't see that this needs to be in the article space, but I do think it could be moved to Project space, and maybe expanded. Or perhaps used to flesh out other methods of navigation. Until then though, I think the best course is to at least utilize it. (though if it is utilized, it might be necessary to be kept for GFDL reasons). FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article isn't necessary, the category is more than sufficient and also more comprehensive. Also I don't think the list gives the reader a very good idea of what the BBC does - it contsains several articles that are only slightly connected to the BBC, and misses some more important ones altogether. - Boy1jhn 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hristina Palikarska[edit]

Hristina Palikarska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. Only 2 Ghits for ‘Hristina Palikarska’ [18] both on Wikipedia. Yahinovo, where they are supposed to rule, is only a village [19]. No sources on page - I have requested them twice and the requests have been deleted. Edward321 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Palikarski[edit]

House of Palikarski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. Only 8 Ghits for ‘House of Palikarski’ [20] only 3 Ghits for ‘George Palikarski’ [21], all of which are Wikipedia or mirrors. Yahinovo, where they are supposed to rule, is only a villaige [22]. Sources are either self-published or non-existant [23] [24]. Edward321 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax.--Sethacus 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Look, I am Borat, I write Wikipedia story. Is very funny.... Mandsford 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...NOT!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article was just recently nominated, and weak rationale given this time around. Non-admin closure. --fuzzy510 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cape Cod Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non notable mall. SLSB talk • contrib 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or possibly even speedy keep given that this was nominated for deletion less than 2 weeks ago. No compelling argument has been presented for deletion of this notable mall, and sufficient reliable third party sources are already within the article. Silensor 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:N with multiple non-trivial third party sources, and the subject is important to local commerce. If someone can convince me that removing this article will somehow improve Wikipedia, I'm all ears. RFerreira 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, weak rationale from nominator. Mall passes WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Bduke 22:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Only just kept a few days ago - this is a WP:POINT nomination. Rebecca 23:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nom presents no compelling argument. Article relisted about a week after the last AfD closed. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no real argument is made for deletion other than one that is to be avoided, especially in a nomination. Yamaguchi先生 01:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The previous AfD was closed as a "no consensus" when there seemed to be clear consensus to "keep" the article as is, a situation that only serves to invite second (and third, and fourth...) AfDs down the road. Alansohn 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Verhei[edit]

Vince Verhei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contributor to a wrestling fan-made newsletter. No sign of notability, no references offered to substantiate the fawning and advertorial tone used in the article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:43, 12 August 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. Kurykh 00:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Blake[edit]

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

fails WP:PORNBIO Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual unknown, fails WP:PORNBIO, this seems to me an effort to use redirects for other actresses to draw people to homepage. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Multiple award nominations in multiple years indicates longevity and a profile within the industry. Tabercil 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Tabercil. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominations Corpx 06:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbest Decisions in Movie History[edit]

Dumbest Decisions in Movie History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is very simple, it just another run of the mill NN list of the month in a popular culture magazine. There is nothing notable about it in the slightest - the only place it is mentioned is in wikipedia mirrors, there are no sources for the list beyond the fact that Total film mentions that such a list was published in a 2004 issue - so even if we accepted that such a list existed - why are we accepting that total film's list is the objective one to follow? how do we up date it from 2004 - by guesswork? Yes it is mentioned in a number of articles - but so what? that just indicates that we need to do the standard prune job on the triva sections of certain articles. Otherwise where do we stop? Do we do the rest of the lists in total film? move onto TV weekly? WP:NOT - wikipedia is not intended to a repository of subjective triva. Fredrick day 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article provides useful and verifiable content to various business and film subgroups. Before this article was created, the 2004 Total Film article about the "dumbest decisions in movie history" was referenced in the following Wikipedia pages: Reds (film), The Sea-Wolf, Six Days Seven Nights, Carry On films and Police Academy (film series). I discovered the list in researching references to the Paterson Silk Strike of 1913. The reference in Reds (film) to the Total Film list conveyed a poignant story about how the message of the movie can get in the way of properly producing the movie. Warren Beatty used the opportunity of making the film in Russia to educate the extras about capitalist exploitation of labor. Those extras then went on strike and demanded higher wages. A classic irony. It made me curious about the other items on Total Film's list. To my disappointment, there was no ready reference for this list, so I created it. This is what Wikipedia is about: a popular source of reference material on all subjects. I agree that the content of this page is not for everyone. However, anyone with an interest in learning from the history of really bad mistakes, anyone interested in the business of film making, and anyone with a sense of humor can use it and enjoy it. There is "something notable" in this list, more than the "slightest." It is a collection of some of the most colossal errors and business misjudgments, topped with a shocking red fashion disaster. It is not true that "the only place it is mentioned is in wikipedia mirrors." A Google search quickly reveals numerous independent references to the 2004 Total Film list, and I cited several of them. The content is verifiable, not the least of which by checking the January 2004 issue of Total Film. Other subjective lists are included in Wikipedia, such as the AFI series of film listings, and any other subjective film awards. That the list is now closed makes verification easier. If Total Film updates this list, future contributors may edit the page. I am distressed that controversy over this page has led to active removal of the prior references to this list throughout Wikipedia content. To verify the pre-existing references, readers must now check the history of each referenced page. That is contrary to the open spirit of Wikipedia. I ask others to vote to keep this page, respecting that no group should block the collection and sharing of information of interest to other groups.r3 19:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that "the only place it is mentioned is in wikipedia mirrors." A Google search quickly reveals numerous independent references to the 2004 Total Film list, and I cited several of them. no you haven't - every single reference you added was a mirror to wikipedia content - if you think a ebay listing which is a mirror of wikipedia content is a verfiable source, we've (well you) have got a problem. You have not provided any references that are not mirrors (except for a single link that proves the list exists - which nobody doubts) --Fredrick day 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains information that is not notable at all:
"10. Anne Heche announced that she was a lesbian shortly after being cast in Six Days Seven Nights."

Is this important? Is any of it important? It seems more like a gossip page than anything else. I believe that the only reason Rrener wants to keep the page is because he created it. (No offense meant) •Malinaccier• T/C 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Abstain. r3 asked me to comment. Coincidentally, I ought not to !vote: I have a conflict of interest in that I wrote a compilation list above movies and published it in a reliable source just last week. Amidst all the sturm und drung after I made a polite suggestion on a few talk pages that a reference to my list be included in the articles of the movies it mentioned (since my list was the first to compile the highest-grossing documentaries going as far back as the history of documentaries, when existing lists only go back to 1982), merely mentioning the list in film articles was rejected on grounds of WP:WEIGHT: it was decided that the calculation was not a notable point of view. If this reasoning were applied consistently, this would suggest that the list in question shouldn't even be mentioned in the articles r3 refers to, much less have its own article. Since I could be accused of WP:POINT if I !vote delete, and COI if I !vote keep, I abstain. Separately, I have copyright concerns about this article. THF 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (clarify 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. The title itself is POV (what truly constitutes a 'dumb' decision? How could we ever know potential other outcomes?) and thus is subject to problems of verifiability. Counterfactuals are great and all, but the original list also fails notability. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only violates WP:NPOV, is the type of subject that invites editors to add nonsense and further POV. Some may deem it interesting/useful is also not a valid reason per WP:AADD Tendancer 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If those were the nine most interesting on the list, I'm glad I didn't see the other 92. Fails the fictional test of WP:B-O-R-R-R-I-N-G-G Mandsford 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources that demonstrate that this list is notable. --Phirazo 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable list from a magazine. --musicpvm 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the title wasn't povish, WHAT decisions are we talking about? Budgeting? Casting? Directing? Content? Production in general? Releasing? Companies? Nope, nope, nope; even if it wasn't glaringly a pov, it would still fail for being so darn vague and WP:OR. -WarthogDemon 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm strongly opposed to copying any subjective list created by a magazine into an encyclopedia Corpx 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Embarrassing junk. Wasted Time R 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per several of the above ... and yikes.--JForget 01:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteViolates NPOV policy, non notable...and get that picture of Sean Connery out of here! Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fervently Strong Delete Violates NPOV policy, while I do find the list amuzing, this is the same junk I get passed to me on Myspace. In my book that makes it trivial and not worthy of any foot notes. So what if it links to notable things, it's nothing short of name dropping.Leonardobonanni 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and everyone above. Crufty nn list. Also note the author of the article has spammed editors he has identified as having past conflicts with the nominator, asking them to comment at this AfD. Sarah 09:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination, this is not an encyclopedic type of list. Yamaguchi先生 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete so kept. Those citing reliable sources are encouraged to add them to the article since it is currently rather lacking. Eluchil404 07:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDex[edit]

CDex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's good software (I use it regularly), but it's non-notable due to lack of third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The PROD tag was deleted with the rationale that it has WP:BIGNUMBER downloads. This does not confer notability. Sandstein 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 17:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacking reliable published secondary sources. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-12t18:05z
  • Delete Like said before, no references, and plus, it's written like an ad. •Malinaccier• T/C 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is actually covered by third parties. Is sufficiently notable anyway per its large usage.--Chealer 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are these sources in the article? Sandstein 05:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply talking about coverage that confirms notability.--Chealer 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being mentioned on websites does not suffice. We need substantial coverage by reliable sources. Google hits are not enough (WP:GHITS). Sandstein 05:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here are a few links that i found pretty easily:

CDex is also mentioned in a number of magazines and sites you might have heard of:

You will find dozens of these once you ACTUALLY LOOK for them.

Regarding WP:BIGNUMBER, shouldn't Wikipedia policies be used in conjuction with common sense? CDex is 8th in alltime top downloads on SourceForge. Number EIGHT for crying out loud. 32,836,851 downloads without counting 3rd party sites. Would you dare say any other software of that top 10 is not "notable enough"? The criteria being it's not covered in your local paper or what? This is ridiculous... Staniol 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I would dare, if their articles cite no sources. Those you provide are not bad, even though some mention the program only in passing. Remember, it is up to you to find these sources, and to actually put them in the article, if you want it kept. The burden of proof for sourcing is always on those wanting to keep content; see WP:V. Sandstein 05:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between WP:V and WP:N. If you are simply concerned by the article's accuracy, it would be best to tag the article {{refimprove}} or put a few {{fact}}-s.--Chealer 01:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article a looong time ago. I think it's quite valid on Wikipedia, but I stopped following the WP:STUFF 2 years ago. Guaka 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn; keep. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kearny_High_School_(San_Diego,_California)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kearny_High_School_(San_Diego,_California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally created as cruft by banned user Jason Gastrich[[25]], who admitted that he had created accounts and edited Wikipedia during his ban[[26]], regardless of the fact that he had been banned for, among other things, precisely that sort of behavior[[27]]. Recommend deletion and merging with San Diego Unified School District, which would provide for a more streamlined and efficient encyclopedia. High schools are not notable by mere existence, and are not notable because of a few real or alleged alumni (ref., WP:NOTINHERITED). There may need to be a Wiki-wide policy on this sort of thing, with articles being limited to specific high schools for academic achievements and national, recognized, and notable awards rather than because they are part-time employers of banned users. In other words, perhaps this should be among many such deletions and merges. - Nascentatheist 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I've said before, most mainstream high schools can be proven to satisfy WP:NOTE with enough effort. Without really trying, I've found a number of newspaper articles that are primarily about the school itself. The fact that an article was written by a banned user doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted; the topic of the article should be judged on its own mertits. By the way, at least some of the "alleged" alumni (Darnary Scott, Alan Trammell) really did attend the school there. Zagalejo 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for your comments. My issue is less than that the article was created by a banned user (which was noted as a matter of article history only) and more that the school itself is not notable. San Diego has a number of schools, and this one graduates lots of students every year, a fraction of which may or may not be notable depending on perspective. The issue about schools is what makes the school notable, and the school is not notable because it graduates the occasional student who becomes a sports figure of some note. I can see no problem with inherited notability if there are significant members of the alumni who contribute to society in significant, notable ways. I don't see that with Kearny or with most high schools that have articles. And what about the quality of the academics? What about state, regional, or national qualifications and awards? Yes, finding articles about schools in local papers is easy. That doesn't make the school notable. That's my argument. Thanks, again. - Nascentatheist 17:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 16:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable alumni are always a factor in the notability of high schools and plenty of sources from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, school has several notable alumni, passes WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please this is a important school with many famous graduates too yuckfoo 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of who created the article or how the article was created, the article stands on its own as establishing notability. The reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for the comments. I might need to reevaluate how I'm going about this (all in the interests of information literacy). As a final comment in the debate before I step back and allow it to continue, I will simply underscore my argument. Kearny has graduated thousands of students over the years. There are six listed as "notable" on the school's Wiki page. That strikes me as rather insignificant, as it would for any school, using the same criteria. As for mention in "independent sources," such as newspapers and web sites, we need to keep in mind that Kearny is a school located in a major metropolitan area. It's certain to get mentioned here and there in the local press. The key is why. Why does it get mentioned in the local press? Is it because of some great or notable things that are done by the school, its students, its faculty, or its administration? Or is it simply because some sports figure, actor, or writer happened to attend? Those things don't establish the school as notable or worthy of an encyclopedia entry. As we peruse the list of proposed deletions of schools, we see quite a few that include recommendations for merging with school district pages and what-not, mostly because notability has not been established. I'll argue that the "notability" guidelines are fairly loose and subject to interpretation. As a resident of the area with no ax to grind, I simply don't find Kearny (or most of the other schools listed) as notable under any reasonable standard or even a reasonable interpretation of WP:NOT. However, Wikipedia is about consensus and community, so I will leave that as the last word from me on the issue and gladly accept the consensus and outcome. Thanks to all for the participation in this process. - Nascentatheist 17:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Speedy Keep- the nominator has an excellent argument, but this particular school is notable because of its notable alumni and has some sources, so I believe it meets WP:V. If it were any other school, I would agree with you, but this particular school should be kept. --Boricuaeddie 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy KeepVerifiable, notable, famous alumni.. What more could you ask for? James Luftan contribs 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep, speedy close per WP:SNOWBALL, and somebody please tell the nominator that this is not the proper way to spank someone, ever. High schools are inherently notable regardless of the history of the author. Thanks Alansohn for underscoring the real issues here. Chris 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, I think there's a sizeable section of the community that would argue that High School is not inherently notable. -- KTC 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, KTC. Sorry to all if I'm going back on my earlier comment to leave my last comments as the last word, but apparently some of us aren't reading the actual arguments that I am presenting and ignoring WP:AGF as a matter of convenience. I hope that no one minds if I respond to an unjust accusation. Chris, the "real issue" is what I said it was, i.e., the establishment of notability for the school, like so many schools. I made a good argument and there was no attempt to refute it. The article will remain because it seems to meet the standards as determined by the consensus of the community. There was no attempt or desire to "spank someone." It's that sort of rush to judgment that causes problems with Wikipedia in the academic community, of which I am a part. These are problems that I thought I'd try to address. If it makes anyone feel better, by all means, let's get an admin to close the discussion, as I will now officially withdraw the nomination for deletion, and we can move on. I can accept that my desire to streamline the process and the system probably was misdirected as far as the method. It probably would have been best to open up a discussion about what constitutes notability and what does not, and set standards that aren't as broad as they are. Perhaps I will try to do that. In the meantime, remember WP:COOL. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn as likely an ill-advised method for a discussion of the underlying problem as it is perceived. Thank you all for your participation. - Nascentatheist 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page has only one song, not even a full article, and also info about when referring to when you get rid of leftovers from your penis. It's not needed. See this. I will invite COMPFUNK2 to the discussion, I say, delete. TheBlazikenMaster 15:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added more items in a See also section. (I can't believe I'm pissing my life away doing this.) Clarityfiend 16:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disambiguation pages should be for articles that share a complete title. Most of the books and songs listed here have much longer titles and wouldn't be searched for using only "pissing". The song that would be could be linked to at the top of the article on urination.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.122.175 (talk)
    • Or common nicknames, which I doubt most of these has. Yeah, I agree, just think how huge the (disambiguation) would be if we included everything that starts with the. TheBlazikenMaster 16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to urination per nom. Non-needed disambig. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad idea. Pissing is already redirected there. Even if it is unlikely some people WILL be disappointed if they searched for pissing (disambiguation) and land on a full article. TheBlazikenMaster 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Now has several entries. --78.86.107.132 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non necessary disambiugtion, as stated above, plus issue about including title of anything that includes that word. One not-particularly-notable song title of a particular name doesn't require an entire disambig page. If the song really needed a disambig a link could be put at the top of the urination page. Otherwise i'd say its sorta listcruft 3tmx 17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:MOSDAB, "do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name". That rules out everything except for the links to urination and the Low song. Two links aren't enough for a Dab page. —David Eppstein 17:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I losing this pissing contest? Are my efforts to go down the drain? Oh, piss-tachios. Clarityfiend 02:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Eppstein. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to create a disambiguation page solely to facilitate song titles/lyrics Corpx 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dremora (band)[edit]

Dremora (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Non-notable band. Released one album on minor indie label which is itself not notable. All three sources are primary (controlled by the artists). Few Google hits. Realkyhick 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only just released their first EP, fails WP:MUSIC at least for now. Once they release a full album, it might be a different. situation. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Eliz81. I would like to see this band become notable one day but right now there's almost no notable sources listed on them.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Singularity 06:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Rockets Cheerleaders[edit]

London Rockets Cheerleaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is not established. Prod'd back in Dec 06 as such. Contested by creator Slober with no explaination, who have since vandalise the page more than once. Reprod'd by Slober on 12 Aug 07. Since a previous prod was technically contested (yes, by the latest prod'er), sending it here. KTC 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable local independent cheer squad. Realkyhick 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete', Not notable. Shabda 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 06:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valente (artist)[edit]

Valente (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN, seems a Wikipedian wrote himself. Valente also edited before. Matthew_hk tc 14:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, likely vanity, and what is the deal with the blurry photo? Realkyhick 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I guess the photo is "artistic"? Sethacus 15:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Realkyhick. IPSOS (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure vanity . . . would it be possible to BJOADN it? Or at least the trivia? -WarthogDemon 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - he claims to have written a soundtrack, but we need more for WP:MUSIC. Bearian 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torbeb Bombbuzzle[edit]

Torbeb Bombbuzzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. I couldn't find any sources to establish the presence of Torbeb in Warcraft lore. Google showed nothing but Wikipedia's own links. Prod'ded before, but got removed by the original editor.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 14:22, 12 August 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. This should be taken to WP:RFD or WP:CSD if it qualify for speedy. Non-admin close KTC 14:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyedem[edit]

Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyedem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this redirect page's title includes a typo ("egyedem" instead of "egyetem"), which is not a common typematic error; there are no links pointing to this page Kuteni 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Order tracks which include the title in the lyrics[edit]

New Order tracks which include the title in the lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has actually been around for over three years. I can't believe it's survived this long, as Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Totally trivial. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete About 90% of every song that has ever been written in the history of mankind has title in their lyrics. What's so special about that? Blueboy96 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic list. --Moonriddengirl 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Listcruft. Also, a knowingly incomplete list. Author mentions excluding "Blue Monday".--Sethacus 15:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (Remarkably Pedantic on my part :O)) Actually not including Blue Monday is correct, as the lyrics of the song don't include the title. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (looking at lyrics of Blue Monday) D'oh!--Sethacus 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any number of 'songs by title feature' have been deleted and one specific to a particular band is no better. Otto4711 16:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and WP:NOT#IINFO. And WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Listcruft. Blueboy, 90% of all songs have the title in their lyrics; the fact that they are from New Order doesn't make them any better. James Luftan contribs 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that's what Blueboy said... at least I understood it that way. No need for a put-down in any event. Delete per Blueboy Mandsford 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm very sorry Blueboy, I misread. I thought that you meant 90% of New Order songs had the title in their lyrics. I'm sorry. Thanks to Mandsford for letting me know. Also, I was not putting Blueboy down, I was expanding on a misread quote. James Luftan contribs 02:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and RIP Tony Wilson. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EXTREMELY trivial information Corpx 06:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extremely trivial, but perhaps try to remember this as a shining example of WP:LISTCRUFT. fuzzy510 07:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RegRCN 12:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible. This is what free and open editing brings us. Burntsauce 18:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as non-notable. Rlevse 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Madness[edit]

Silent Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MOVIE--only one review by a national critic. Blueboy96 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyros Sofras[edit]

Spyros Sofras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Small-city mayor, NN per WP:BIO Gordonofcartoon 13:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Every mayor isn't inherently notable. There is also already a bit about him in the Salamis article.--Sethacus 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not believe people of such narrow scope of notability should be included in WP Corpx 06:00, 13 August 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 not kept. Singularity 07:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising 2.0[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Advertising 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I closed this AfD inappropriately after consensus was thought to be reached, relisted now h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:00, 12 August 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. Eluchil404 07:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer, Dorothy, Cheer![edit]

Cheer, Dorothy, Cheer! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

small, non-notable fundraising group. There are lots of volunteer groups out there and this one is of no special significance. It also reads like an advertisement Sumoeagle179 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Its a registered 501c non profit org. Shabda 12:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That does not establish notability.Sumoeagle179 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and in accordance with the correct statement by Sumoeagle179. Not every 501c organization deserves an encyclopedia entry. Fails WP:NOT and does not have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - Nascentatheist 16:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - unless a number of serious secondary sources can verify this organization's notability the article has to go. As it stands there are no sources and so it fails WP:ORG--Cailil talk 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've adding some references including an award they received. As a minority niche performance art troupe I wouldn't expect them to have a lot of notable coverage in such a short time. Now that they are a non-profit they are likely to get more traditional exposure and attention, especially once their fundraising efforts add up and are recognized publicly. p.s. aren't articles supposed to be improved by editing before deletion process? Benjiboi 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think the one award from Lavender magazine is enough to be notable. Also, the scope of notability is a little too narrow for me Corpx 05:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I've had a look at the sourcing and although more needs to be done, I think this just about passes WP:ORG. The Article needs a clean-up but there seems to be some notability here. I do agree with Corpx that the notability is narrow but I think it just makes it--Cailil talk 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found reference to the group's routines in several 'cheeerleading source' sites leading me to believe that they have made 'innovative contributions to a field' of cheerleading and performance art which satisfies the Wikipedia 'notability' requirement for entertainers.207.69.137.29 02:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by award and sources found by 207.69.137.29. Article could use an expansion of sources, esp. those cheerleading source sites, but that's not reason to delete it. --Ace of Swords 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – Just enough notability, barely enough references. I don't like the YouTube one, but need for a cleanup is not need for deletion. — madman bum and angel 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Youtube refs were added as subject is a performance art group and both refs were backed up by secondary sources. Benjiboi 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A weak keep, but a keep regardless. Just passes notability (yes, it's narrow) and references, and needs more work. If I had seen before the good work by Benjiboy, I prolly would have voted delete. Agree that not all 501c3 orgs, per se, are notable. — Becksguy 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. When he debuts, the article may be reinstated. Singularity 01:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Iqbal[edit]

Amjad Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer. Soccerbase page shows no sign of notability. Not in the PFA Premier + Football League Player's Records, so seems to have never played for a professional team. Mattythewhite 11:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amjad Iqbal is a prospective Pakistani international and among the few British Asians in football. He only turned professional for Farsley Celtic a few seasons back. I think its about time some non-League players are also given some form of recognition for the sake football.Suprah™ 08:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is that a keep !vote then.....? ChrisTheDude 08:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a prospective international (even for a weak national team) is irrelevant. Non-League footballers are given recognition, but only if they played in a higher league before. Punkmorten 09:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league. Of course, reinstate if he ever plays for Pakistan or in League Two +. Number 57 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I will keep you lads updated if and when Amjad makes his Pakistan debut as he possesses dual Pakistani and British nationalities and is eligible for both, understandably his obvious choice would be Pakistan given he doesnt play in the Premiership and is already in his late 20s. So I am okay with Delete as long as it can be reinstated as soon as Amjad makes his debut, probably against Iraq in October 2007 in the World Cup preliminaries.Suprah™ 14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as does not meet WP:BIO but do bring it back of course if he does play for Pakistan, which will make him notable. --Malcolmxl5 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Skillz[edit]

Fundamental Skillz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No proof of notability, seems to even fail WP:BAND. No sources, reads as spam. Previous prod was contested by an IP user. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonnotable and possibly promotional. Shalom Hello 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 10:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When people start new articles like this, does the "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" notice just elude their attention completely? It's unbelievable. They're wasting their own time writing these articles too.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More information than a NN band usually has, but still no evidence of notability, no sources, and no significant Google mentions I can find other than results for every "sign up your band here" community on the Web. --kateshortforbob 10:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as repost. Non-admin closure.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising 2.0[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Advertising 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted. See discussion and reasons below Sleepyhead 09:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed nom. to use 2nd nomination page. KTC 09:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supersonic delete and close - reasons for deletion still hold, the article is entirely WP:OR, all sources are blogs. This is a no brainer of a delete. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as repost, going to tag it as such. I've never closed an AfD before, someone want to make a quick non-admin closure?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:41, 12 August 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 redirect after deleting copyvio. -- RHaworth 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of Qiyamah[edit]

Signs of Qiyamah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I would CSD this if only I can figure out a criteria for it. Copyvio., lack of context, .... KTC 09:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a terms that is often search so a redirect is appropriate. However, I do agree with your sentiments on the contents as it currently stands. Maybe delete (to get rid of the copyvio) and then create a redirect? → AA (talk) — 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Qiyamah until someone edits the signs section on that pgae to warrant a subarticle. I have for the time being redirected the page to get rid of the copyvio (and horrible formatting). I don't think there is a need for this afd anymore but I'll let another admin close it. Pepsidrinka 14:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was delete. Kurykh 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cina Bolton[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cina Bolton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedied but claim to notability is there, albeit perhaps weak as well as unsourced. Taking to AFD instead. And oh, the first nomination is irrelevant. Punkmorten 08:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless a reliable source can be found describing Pocket Book of Pirates as a 'cult classic' with significant fame to pass the WP:BIO guidelines. I doubt she's won "significant critical critical attention". Black-Velvet 09:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No WP:RS. While the "book" apparently exists, even the evidence of that does not establish (or suggest) notability. --Evb-wiki 14:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pukester[edit]

Pukester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DICT KTC 08:46, 12 August 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. Rlevse 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Puts[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kevin Puts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not accomplished enough to merit inclusion. Brokethebank 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Speedy delete - No assertion of notability. {{db-bio}} --Evb-wiki 15:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The awards might do it for me, although I'm not an expert either by any means. Notability still needs to be asserted. --Evb-wiki 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Per above. Shabda 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF, not sure if counts as a speedy. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) Keep per additions of User:Mscuthbert. Sounds like a cleanup case, thanks for taking the time to investigate. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article doesn't express notability well, but a search finds it. He is now at Peabody, one of the top 10 conservatories in the country. Peabody does not have titles or tenure so it's hard to apply the "tenured professor at top institute" test, but I think he'd pass or at lease be very close. Add his American Academy of Arts and Letters prize, his Guggenheim, and his Rome Prize. Talking about grabbing him for a guest residency, one conductor wrote, "It’s a pretty big coup. Kevin is an internationally recognized composer and someone who’s gaining more and more in prominence," [28]. He's having Cello Concertos premiered by Yo-Yo Ma. All in all extremely far from Speedy for anyone taking the time to even Google the name. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Though that's certainly nothing to turn up one's nose at, it is still a press release promoting his appearance and perhaps not the best source of verifiable information. I checked Google news, and I found incidental mention of his music, but nothing indicating substantial coverage. Do you have any other, more neutral sources to establish notability? (I can't comment on the awards' ability to establish notability, since it's out of my area of expertise). Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: In the world of academic composition, those prizes certainly put one on the map pretty clearly. I know that when I taught at Mt. Holyoke, that their profs had won the Guggenheim and Rome Prize were listed prominently in promotional materials (For Example). I won't squawk too much about the notability of the Rome Prize since it's a conflict of interest (I know from experience that sometimes non-notable people have gotten them), but I'll assert that it is generally considered a major accomplishment esp. in the visual arts and music composition and often winners are about 10 years away from being big names (1991: Lee Hyla, David Lang (composer); 1992: Stephen Hartke, Bun-Ching Lam; 1993: no prize; 1994: Sebastian Currier). I dunno, what prizes in composition would assert notability? A Grawemeyer? It's hard to say to people outside the world of academic music what's important or not. (Re: DGG's comments: I agree about the tenured prof. @ top institute test is not enough by itself, but as you've noted it's usually a clue to dig deeper. I'm just reporting what two minutes on Google found.) Also add Meet the Composer commission with the New World Symphony. Here's Eastman's website: "For several years, Kevin Puts (BM ’94, DMA ’99) received reviews describing him as a “promising composer” and “a young composer to watch.” But with a flurry of recent performances and prestigious commissions, Puts can now be described as one of America’s most important composers, period." Granted, Eastman has a vested interest in promoting their own, but that they've chosen to promote him (when they graduate many many composers) is important. (I'm not saying Strong keep, only because, I'll admit, the article isn't well written and doesn't assert notability. If it survives AfD, I'll work on it a bit, adding what I've found above). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of what Myke found. But I am not sure about the tenured professor at top institute test by iteself--we've been using it as a preliminary indication that there will be something there, not as a definitive judgment. DGG (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regular at the Cabrillo Music Festival; composer-in-residence with the Fort Worth Symphony; received a commission from the Aspen Music Festival, no less, to write a cello concerto for Yo-Yo Ma. This easily gets him over our notability bar. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangelove the Musical[edit]

Strangelove the Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This musical play was performed only locally, in Sydney and Melbourne, and the information I've been able to find about it is from blogs and individuals. ails WP:FICTION. KrakatoaKatie 08:37, 12 August 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 wasDelete primarily the content of the article appears to have come from other existing articles, GFDL violation as there is no indication of what article it came from. I notice the distinct lack of consensus building with the article and recommend that all editors use the mediation process to resolve the content issues of the other articles Gnangarra 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture[edit]

Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The main one is that this is obviously a POV fork of Factory farming and other related pages, as per a long winded controversy with the editor and supporters that started this page. However, the page itself has serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that cannot be fixed by editing, as they stem from the POV fork motivation. As an example, the page joins, via WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, many unrelated, and in some cases impossible to relate, topics ranging from economic issues in the industry, to health issues, to political and policy issues, most of which already have their own pages or are sections of other pages. This article is unencyclopedic and POV motivated. Cerejota 08:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Striking. I'm calmer. I should discuss content, not people. WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am raising this further, this is your second unwarranted personal attack against me. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems WAS started this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Animal_liberation_POV_pushing_by_admins without notifying any of the involved parties, a further display of incivility. I have merged my AN/I into his thread to keep things central. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that WAS has accused me of vandalism for tagging pages in his "roadmap" with {{synthesis}} and {{mergeto}}/{{mergefrom}}. This is why AfD is necessary, any attempts to move OR material forward is met by uncivil roadblocks.--Cerejota 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a good article on a notable subject, SqueakBox 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. Looks like a POV fork. Merge and redirect, with no independent creation. Editors should resolve the disputes on Factory farming without spinning off their own version. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually, Factory farming could be argued to be a POV fork of Industrial agriculture. This isn't as straightforward as I thought. Cool Hand Luke 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply, your impression is entirely incorrect. Factory farming was started at 17:29, 3 January 2004, while Industrial agriculture was created at 06:06, 30 April 2007 (more than 3 years later!) as an obvious POV fork from Factory farming that has since expanded and hence a less clear-cut candidate for AfD. (No coincidence WAS is also heavily involved in that one). However, this are issues to discuss somewhere else, just wanted to clarify that you are incorrect in your view that Factory farming is a POV fork, it is in fact the original article. Thanks! --Cerejota 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, but the article now at Factory farming spent most of its life at Industrial agriculture. With this sub-page of Industrial agriculture, we have far too many forks covering the same ground. Deleting this one doesn't adequately address the problem. I think, as I say below, that everything, including this, should be merged into a couple of articles. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you in this respect. However, user WAS keeps pushing, with the support of a set of anti-animal rights editors, a WP:SYNTH roadmap, and doesn't allow any discussion. Furthermore, he has turned down several Mediation requests, which where intended to address this very question. Deletion is the only process left, because he WP:OWNs the articles and won't allow merging. I mean, I started a merge discussion, and WAS accused me of vandalism? What kind of bantha pudu is that? I ask you to reconsider your position, delete, and join me in trying to get these articles into a good place. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please refrain from personal attacks. You appear to have characterised me as an anti-animal rights editor. You have no knowledge of my personal views, and I would suggest that this comment misrepresents myself and indeed other editors. Thanks!--Spenny 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • After careful consideration, I still think merging back into Industrial agriculture is the best response. This combined article will have to be merged and refactored into Factory farming (under a more neutral title as outlined below), but AfD is not the appropriate forum for this content dispute. POV forks should be merged, not deleted. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any relevant content into other articles, though all or most of it already exists elsewhere, because this is a POV fork. CHL, you were right the first time. Factory farming was always the main article, though it was called "Industral agriculture." It is WAS 4.250 and a few others who currently want to call it "Factory farming," because they see it as a dumping ground for views they disagree with (what they call "activist" views). WAS 4.250 created Industrial agriculture (crops), Industrial agriculture (animals), and Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture as POV forks, as a way of isolating the material he doesn't like in Factory farming. Several editors on the other "side" have suggested splitting all the articles into two: Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops) (or "industrial" instead of "intensive") but WAS 4.250 has rejected the suggestion: he wants the multiplication of pages. He has also rejected two formal requests for mediation. The personal attacks he has made above against Cerejota are typical of his approach on the factory farming page over the last few months, which is why I stopped editing the article and talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's a POV fork, but all four of these articles appear to cover similar ground. I think they've all been turned into POV forks. Merging all articles into those suggested two would be the ideal solution, but until then I'm not sure why we should delete just one of three forks. Maybe merge into industrial agriculture with mandate to merge all forks into two articles as suggested. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WAS 4.250 was not the only one to reject the two article split. Slim and Cerejota painting this as "WAS against the rest of us" is bullshit. Claiming all with opposing views as anti-animal rights editors is equally bull. We are either with you, or against you. Right? Intensive farming (animal/crops) and Challenges and issues... can be seen as natural forks that happens when particular sections get too large. Please point out why it is WP:POVFORK and not WP:SUMMARY instead of just claiming POVFORK!!!.--Dodo bird 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete POV fork created as a WP:POINT to try to remove the criticism in Factory Farming. Most editors in FF agreed to go to mediation to decide on the proper way to structure the FF-related articles. WAS 4.250 went against consensus, refused the mediation and thereby scuttled it, and decided instead to create his POV forks. We need to get back to deciding on the overall structure of FF-related articles and accept mediation to do so. POV forks and WP:POINT are never a solution, and this one is no exception. Crum375 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The debate on the ethics of industrial architecture is a notable subject in its own right and the titling of the subject is designed to avoid taking a position. The problem with merged articles is that it has been difficult to separate the mechanics of farming from the ethical debate, be it in Factory Farming or Industrial Agriculture.
Whilst comments above have characterised one view, the comments above show a continuing lack of good faith of which Cerejota has been a willing party to. WAS is just more obvious in his personal attacks than the misrepresentations by other parties. It is recognised that there is edit warring and deleting this article is just another means of continuing the edit war, disguised as a noble cause. Unfortunately, Cerojota and SV and now Crum have chosen to see the response to their belligerent approach to editing as personal attacks, and appear to believe that their own involvement is unimpeachable. John was encouraging a fresh start, but the inflammatory and misleading comments about the motivations of editors rather than content just continue to show the lack of good faith. I don't condone WAS's response, but it is justified if you are aware of the context.
  • as per a long winded controversy with the editor and supporters that started this page - personal attack not content.
  • However, the page itself has serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that cannot be fixed by editing, - are we to believe that problems in Wikipedia cannot be fixed by editing - a novel view, possibly WP:OR!
  • as they stem from the POV fork motivation. AGF
  • As an example, the page joins, via WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, many unrelated, and in some cases impossible to relate, topics ranging from economic issues in the industry, to health issues, to political and policy issues, most of which already have their own pages or are sections of other pages. If you understand the ethical debate, then it is as complex as the interdependency of techniques, as are most contentious ethical debates.
  • This article is unencyclopedic and POV motivated. Again, AGF and is using the logic of the Bellman's rule of three.
  • most of which already have their own pages or are sections of other pages as is made clear by the linking to those pages. Repetition of content is not inappropriate, and where inappropriate it may be resolved by editing not by deletion.
  • Comments on the mediation are similarly continuing a personal attack, undermining the most involved editor rather than looking at content. Spenny 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyI am sorry, we delete POV forks all the time. This is a POV fork, which has further WP:OR, and now we see WP:OWN. It is that simple. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, POV fork. Find a way to seek consensus on all the articles around factory farming instead of creating spin-off articles to remove info from the main article. --Alabamaboy 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The argument that consensus on all the articles should be sought is valid. The problem is that there is no content-based reason to call "Factory farming" the "main article." The fact that "Factory farming" is treated as the "main article" by some editors is merely a reflection of a particular agenda, an agenda that emphasizes some of the challenges and issues of industrial agriculture rather than others. I don't believe that those who created "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture were trying to "remove info" from "Factory farming," but rather to construct an appropriate article that was capable of discussing the entirety of these challenges and issues, rather than being limited to those which preoccupy certain editors, however concerning those issues may be. BCST2001 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. WAS has a history of creating POV forks to get around consensus, often violating the GFDL in the process and he really needs to cut it out. Sarah 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this comment based on a review of content, or an assumption of behaviour? It gives the appearance of a personal attack rather than a considered view of the contents of the article. Spenny 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument that it is a POV fork ignores the question of whether the article it is supposed to be forking from is itself rather too POV. As user Cool Hand Luke observed, "Factory farming" might itself very well be understood as a POV fork of "Industrial agriculture." The fact that "Industrial agriculture" was started after "Factory farming" does not invalidate this understanding, as "Factory farming" can be understood as a "pre-emptive" attempt to control the representation of agricultural issues on Wikipedia (an attempt that has been quite successful for a long time). The unfortunate fact is that the article on "Factory farming" is contained to a limited interpretation of what the challenges and issues of industrial agriculture really are. These challenges and issues extend far beyond the question of animal welfare. This does not mean that the article on "Factory farming" ought not exist, but the question is obviously begged about the real motivation for deleting "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture." It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the real reason for pushing deletion is an attempt to control what articles there are about modern agriculture, and what the content of those articles is, in order to highlight and emphasize as much as possible the animal welfare concerns that preoccupy certain editors. It would make more sense to delete "Factory farming" and merge it into "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture," on the grounds that the animal welfare issues fall within the scope of that article, but such a move would be opposed out of hand by those editors who (falsely, in my view) feel this would dilute their animal welfare message. I do not write this as somebody unconcerned with animal welfare, but rather as someone concerned not to neglect all the other challenges and issues which arise from modern agricultural practice. I do not see any NOR problems (certainly no serious ones warranting deletion), nor do I think the article is unencyclopaedic. The editor who nominated this article for deletion seems to misunderstand WP:SYNTH, or at the very least has failed to demonstrate in what way arguments are being joined together to advance another position. The fact that this article touches on certain issues that are covered more fully elsewhere is one of its strengths, not a weakness. Finally, I cannot help wondering what point of view the creators of "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture" are supposed to be pushing: no mention has been made of what that POV could be. In fact, there is good evidence that the article was created in order to increase neutrality in comparison with the "Factory farming" article. BCST2001 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You have illustrated for the closing admin why this page must be deleted as a POV fork: you say that Factory farming contained to a limited interpretation of what the challenges and issues of industrial agriculture really are. In other words, instead of editing the much older article called Factory farming, you suggest the creation of a POV fork! As to WP:SYNTH, you just have to see the first part of the article, in which without sourcing or any secondary source mention a table relating a relationship between food production capacity was created. That table and accompaying text is the very example of WP:SYNTH. The entire article is like that: it takes sources and makes them fit the WP:SYNTH model WAS has in mind and has published. The corretc way to do this is not to fork over pov difference but to continue seeking consensus. Unfortunately WAS has opposed all attemps at arbitration that have been proposed, and instead has pushed his WP:SYNTH model, with the support of like minded editors. This misrepresentation of the article has to stop. The WP:SYNTH is obvious. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a fork, although I don't believe it's a POV fork. I think the issue is complex enough to merit this page. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, It is a POV fork, although I do agree that the issues are complex enough to warrant multiple pages. That is the gist of the matter: WAS has been pushing his WP:SYNTH model, instead of discussing it (or discussing it with like-minded editors) - and being generally uncivil (see this very AfD) - after several instances of disruptive posting, I put his WP:SYNTH "roadmap" into Talk:Factory farming\WASLIST. He also maps out his WP:SYNTH structure in the talk page of Factory farming. He builds a WP:SYNTH desert and calls it "consensus". Yes the issues are deep, but the user pretty much is engaging in wanton WP:SYNTH instead of bibliographical sourcing. Great for college papers, bad for wikipedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? .V. [Talk|Email] 08:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why what? --Cerejota 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you make quite a few claims both here and the article's talk page, yet I don't see any evidence (hence the question, "Why?"). Simply saying that something is a SYNTH violation or that it's POV does not make it SYNTH or POV. (And honestly, it sounds like you have more of an issue with WAS than with this article. Your criticism seems to revolve mostly around him.) .V. [Talk|Email] 14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please re-read. I have clearly stated that WAS has bene pushing around an OR/SYNTH lists of unsourced material (OR) Talk:Factory farming\WASlist, and an inorganic structure that doesn't flow from sources (SYNTH). For the structure, visit Talk:Factory farming as it has been reposted several times by WAS. Furthermore, the clear POV fork of the pages in question is illustrated in that Talk:Factory farming is were all of these things have been given birth: this page is the most egregious examples of POV fork, but not the only one. I hope I have answered your questions. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've clearly stated that WAS has been doing these things, but I suppose I do not see the same things in this that you see. I'm not convinced by the idea that this a POV fork from factory farming because industrial agriculture is not the same as factory farming (as in, factory farming is a type of industrial agriculture). Although factory farming is mentioned, it really could not be considered a POV fork from that article. I think Jav43 below said it fairly well. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article addresses industrial agriculture - it does not cover the more narrow subset of factory farming. Industrial agriculture is a separate, distinct issue which is worthy of its own article set. The article in question here is one of the better articles addressing modern agriculture systems. There are many problems with the broad set of articles encompassing modern agriculture, but this article is not one of the problems. Jav43 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am tempted to suggest that the appropriate response to the lack of debate on content is to remove all the text which relates to personality, history, and also to remove unproven comments about breeches of policy, and see what is left. There will not be much left. The Bellman's Rule of Three approach to policy used by Cerejota needs justification. I see an article which is not fully formed, mainly the work of one person. I do not see POV pushing but an attempt to present a wide range of issues, all of which are presented by the protagonists on the ethical debate of modern farming practices, in a factual manner without taking a viewpoint on the rights and wrongs of this. I do not even understand from the content of the article, what POV is being pushed as is claimed. I am sure that an FA status has not been achieved, but that will not be achieved by deletion, and certainly there is strong evidence that the Factory Farming article is not fit for purpose. Spenny 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a blatant POV fork of Factory Farming (plus a few other bits), and as this is a long running dispute it is premature to make any fork anyway! This is a typical example of WAS refusing to wait for consensus and simply creating articles willy nilly, replicating information all over the place. Localzuk(talk) 15:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. One persons willy nilly is another persons reasoned creation of a structured framework for articles. Spenny 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not a personal attack - the user ignored the ongoing debate and decided, unilaterally, to start creating mainspace forks of articles based on his viewpoint - ignoring the views of other editors. This is not good behaviour and my comment stands.-Localzuk(talk) 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll rephrase, can you address the issue, not the personality. It is not helpful language to use. As much as ARBCOM is about behaviour, not content, this process here is about content, not behaviour. Spenny 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 2 are linked and are important for this AFD. WAS's POV forking and unilateral creation of articles counter to consensus should have some bearing on the result of this AFD. For example, if an editor decided to take all negative information of of the George W Bush article, and put it in its own article - after a 1 year discussion on the fact, counter to any possible consensus - should this not be mentioned?-Localzuk(talk) 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, fundamentally not. The question at hand is: regardless of personal points of view, is this a valid article? If there is one reason why Factory Farming will not move on, it is the insistence on recalling the history of who said what. Move on. Look at the content, not the message. Given that there is not consensus on the structure of the article, and, getting beyond personality, there is a logic to the structure proposed. The whole proposal of this article is based on a point of view which is very much grounded in a personal dispute and positions are being taken based on that point of view, and the simple and obvious statement of bad faith. I am working very hard to be seen to be rising above it. Put it behind you and move on, look at content. Spenny 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Spenny said. Look at things objectively; don't allow personal animosity to cloud your judgment. Jav43 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have appreciated if you had the same level of vigilance you show now with WAS when he periodically attacks me. But of course, you support his POV Fork SYNTH pushing, so that would be in appropiate. If you think a personal attack happened, go to AN/I and say so, if not, stop poisoning the well. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as this topic is concerned, I have adopted John's principle of a fresh start. I am doing my best to address issues not people. You are mis-characterising me again. I have given reasoned argument as to why I do not believe there is POV Fork and I do not agree there is any exceptional level of synthesis, it is therefore impugning my motives that you suggest that I am doing this to support a person. I hope it is crystal clear that I am being focused on content. It appears that you believe that I am gaming the system by carefully trying to act correctly, as is one principle in dispute resolution and I have been encouraged to do by User:John. The only gaming going on here is that this clearly an element of personality in the debate, when, to paraphrase your own words over in ARBCOM, this is about content not behaviour. There is no need to escalate disputes which can be resolved amicably by discussion. Poisoning the well? The well is a content dispute, the poison is the personal element and behaviour. Yes, WAS does not behave by the book, but given the amount of correction and invective he is given, it hardly needs me to wade in too. The difference in perspective between you and me, I would suggest, is that I see good faith in his efforts. Thanks!--Spenny 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To explain why I think it is a POV fork... It is a POV fork because it is an attempt to take all the controversy related info (so, any diseases related to the practice etc...) and put them in one place, therefore removing them from the original pages. It is along the same lines that have been called for in only dealing with animal rights related stuff on the Factory Farming article, whilst discussing 'Intensive Farming' on a seperate article. By doing this, we end up with a set of articles that have pro and anti slants - POV forks of the original articles. Localzuk(talk) 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reasonable case for saying that the controversy should be dealt with in the same article. I see two issues (there is always a however with me!): one there is a simple page size issue, and there is great potential for giving the controversy undue weight over the main article, and this latter aspect is of much concern to me. The second issue is that there is no consensus as to what this is a POV fork of, (though I would argue that a less contentious position might be to claim it was an unnecessary spin off argument rather than a POV fork). To a certain extent I see it as an arbitrary split because in the main article there should be a clear separation of a description of process to allow readers to gain a clear understanding of what is being discussed, and then the ethical debate, clearly sectioned off to avoid it gaining undue weight on the subject.
A simple test I had was that we might wish to discuss animal rendering plants. These are industrial plants clearly associated with agricultural industry in its wider scope. We are interested in rendering and its relation to the controversy related to the UK BSE crisis and this issues associated with them. I can happily place discussion on that on this proposed page, or I can put it on Industrial agriculture (the big picture), or I can describe the rendering process there, allude to the issues and then deal with the controversy elsewhere. The place I cannot put it is Factory farming, because it is not about farms, nor the process of intensive livestock management.
So as I see it, there is no big deal about keeping the split. There is a big deal about casting it as a POV fork. If that argument is accepted, then it is essentially accepting that the article itself should not make a distinction between the ethics and the processes of farming. There is also a big deal about the difference between factory farming and industrial architecture, which is an unresolved dispute as to scope. Spenny 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Updated for typos Spenny 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why should there be this division of controversy out of the main articles? This is the very defintion of a POV fork - creating an article to cover only one 'side' of an argument! The article itself shouldn't make a distinction between ethics and processes, in so much that if there is an ethical complaint about a process then it should be discussed in the main article - not farmed off (pun not intended) to a seperate article.-Localzuk(talk) 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. If a process is described, and a reliable source criticizes it based on an ethical argument, that criticism must be included. Spenny's argument is rather like saying we should have articles about the war in Iraq that omit any criticism based on moral arguments about just war. As Localzuk said, this is the very definition of a POV fork. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This is why [30] has no discussion about criticism based on moral arguments about just war - issues regarding broader topics do not belong in the subset. Thus this article, addressing industrial agriculture, hosts discussion that does not belong in factory farming. Jav43 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: what is the logic of claiming delete for a fork? The response for forking should be merging. Spenny 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An AfD is about the title, not the content. The question is: should this content exist under this title, or should it be merged into another existing article? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we have to remember that, as was determined (at one point) in the talk page for factory farming, industrial agriculture and factory farming are separate things. This page cannot be a fork of factory farming since it deals with industrial agriculture. This page covers issues that do not belong in factory farming (like, as Spenny mentioned, BSE). Jav43 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that those terms are separate things. IIRC, 4 out of the 9 discussing the issue specifically argued that they are the same thing.-Localzuk(talk) 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That they're separate things is your own personal opinion, Jav, and BSE is very much part of the criticism of factory farming. It's why British scientists and the German chancellor called for an end to factory farming. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We take the dispute on scope as an unresolved point: we agree to differ. (I'd like to work through that with John as a moderator over on FF if he engages again). I'd find it helpful if you could comment on the rendering point above, though perhaps you may feel that is spinning outside the scope of a deletion request, it could be helpful to get a handle on the merge/delete perspective. Spenny 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reasons given below. WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - About the length of my below reply: It is shorter than the article, shorter than the sources for the article, shorter than the suite of articles that it is part of, shorter than the talk page of factory farming that explains the points of views involved. So for those who wish to read a short version of (1) what is this article about, (2) how does it fit into wikipedia, and (3) why factory farming is in no way a substitute for this article (how can it be? they aren't even about the same thing! how anyone can read both articles and claim one is a POV version of the other makes no sense), I submit the below condensed version. - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is this article about

According to thousands of sources, of which these three ( Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics article Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand The Regional Institute article EVOLUTION OF THE FARM OFFICE Learning Seed ) are representative, important issues regarding industrial agriculture include:

  1. what it is exactly
  2. how it fits into modern science/technology
  3. how it fits into modern global and national politics
  4. its place in the modern corporate world
  5. its effect on traditional farming practices and communities
  6. its effect on the environment
  7. the ethical issue of causing pain to animals
  8. the ethical issue of creating "unnatural" ecologies and lifeforms
  9. the need for it to keep billions of people from starving
  10. specifically, what it is as applied to Animals
  11. specifically, what it is as applied to Aquaculture
  12. specifically, what it is as applied to Shrimp
  13. specifically, what it is as applied to Chickens
  14. specifically, what it is as applied to Pigs
  15. specifically, what it is as applied to Cattle
  16. specifically, what it is as applied to Crops
  17. specifically, what it is as applied to Wheat
  18. specifically, what it is as applied to Maize
  19. specifically, what it is as applied to Soybean
  20. specifically, what it is as applied to Tomato
  21. specifically, the part modern management techniques plays
  22. specifically, the part mechanical harvesting plays
  23. specifically, the part genetic modification plays
  24. specifically, the part hydroponics plays
  25. industrial organic farming
  26. innovation in agricultural machinery and farming methods
  27. genetictic technology development
  28. techniques for achieving economies of scale in production
  29. the creation of new markets for consumption
  30. the application of patent protection to genetic information
  31. globalization
  32. historical development
  33. current efforts to modify it it including "sustainable agriculture" efforts
  34. Cheap and plentiful food
  35. Convenience for the consumer
  36. The contribution to our economy on many levels, from growers to harvesters to processors to sellers
  37. Environmental and social costs
  38. Damage to fisheries
  39. Cleanup of surface and groundwater polluted with animal waste
  40. Increased health risks from pesticides
  41. Increased ozone pollution and global warming from heavy use of fossil fuels
  42. marketing challenges and consumer tastes
  43. international trading environment (world market conditions, barriers to trade, quarantine and technical barriers, maintenance of global competitiveness and market image, and management of biosecurity issues affecting imports and the disease status of exports)
  44. biosecurity (pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugar smut)
  45. infrastructure (such as transport, ports, telecommunications, energy and irrigation facilities)
  46. management skills and labor supply (With increasing requirements for business planning, enhanced market awareness, the use of modern technology such as computers and global positioning systems and better agronomic management, modern farm managers will need to become increasingly skilled. Examples: training of skilled workers, the development of labor hire systems that provide continuity of work in industries with strong seasonal peaks, modern communication tools, investigating market opportunities, researching customer requirements, business planning including financial management, researching the latest farming techniques, risk management skills)
  47. coordination (a more consistent national strategic agenda for agricultural research and development; more active involvement of research investors in collaboration with research providers developing programs of work; greater coordination of research activities across industries, research organisations and issues; and investment in human capital to ensure a skilled pool of research personnel in the future.)
  48. technology (research, adoption, productivity, genetically modified (GM) crops, investments)
  49. water (access rights, water trade, providing water for environmental outcomes, assignment of risk in response to reallocation of water from consumptive to environmental use, accounting for the sourcing and allocation of water)
  50. resource access issues (management of native vegetation, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, sustainability of productive agricultural resources, landholder responsibilities)
  51. the industrial farm owner issue of integrated farming systems
  52. the industrial farm owner issue of crop sequencing
  53. the industrial farm owner issue of water use efficiency
  54. the industrial farm owner issue of nutrient audits
  55. the industrial farm owner issue of herbicide resistance
  56. the industrial farm owner issue of financial instruments (such as futures and options)
  57. the industrial farm owner issue of collect and understand own farm information;
  58. the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your products
  59. the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your markets
  60. the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your customers
  61. the industrial farm owner issue of satisfying customer needs
  62. the industrial farm owner issue of securing an acceptable profit margin
  63. the industrial farm owner issue of cost of servicing debt;
  64. the industrial farm owner issue of ability to earn and access off-farm income;
  65. the industrial farm owner issue of management of machinery and stewardship investments - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • how does it fit into wikipedia

Industrial agriculture (IA) is the context for this article and the suite of articles that it is a part of includes:

These are articles which contain industrial agriculture information and are appropriately structured. - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case, the guy posted his WP:SYNTH in here. Will someone please bring him under control? Thanks!--Cerejota 13:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just noting here that WAS is the one who wants the title "factory farming," and who has resisted all attempts to move it to Intensive farming (animals), including scuppering two requests for mediation by refusing to take part. He has admitted he wants that title as a dumping ground for what he sees as animal advocacy criticism of intensive/industrial farming, in violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are personalising the issue rather than considering the content. As an administrator you are held to the highest levels of conduct and with your experience you should be setting an example rather than continuing what has every appearance of a personal vendenta against WAS rather than debating the content. Spenny 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, every charge you just made against me is false. You insist on continuing your unfounded personal attacks against me. I do not care if there is a wikipedia article with the title "factory farming". I think the material that you want to put in the article factory farming has a place on wikipedia and I don't care that much what it is named. I have not resisted any effort to move it to Intensive farming (animals); I resist the redefining of agriculture to be only what is currently at factory farming. Agriculture is so much more than that. I have tried to assist a requests for mediation by agreeing not to edit factory farming and having my name removed. I have not said that I want any article "used as a dumping ground". Summary style is valid and common and not a POV fork. WAS 4.250 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not using summary style. You're just copy and pasting the same material into different articles (in violation of the GFDL) to leave behind the criticism you don't like. Can you point to a single piece of text that you have actually written, rather than moving other people's work around? Here is your comment implying that you see Factory farming as a dumping ground: "As long as the other agricultural articles aren't also made into being all about angst for animals then I don't feel its worth the time to fight over this article [factory farming] being too much like that." [31] As Localzuk said, this is the very definition of a POV fork. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is only SYNTH to the extent that every single wikipedia article is SYNTH, Cerejota, by using more than one source. Providing an outline based upon sources is not synth, but rather is good planning. Jav43 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I briefly entertained this notion at one point! Yes, I did! Contrary to the accusations by WAS, you and others, SlimVirgin and I do not share off-wiki POVs in a number of topics, and have clashed in the past over wikistuff and even controversial topics. This isn't about POV pushing.
However as I analyzed WAS' proposal, and engaged him in debate, it became clear to me that
        1. Articles have to be notable, verifiable, neutrally presented AND reliably sourced, not one, not the other, but all. WP:ATT makes sense (another point of agreement I share with SV).
        2. The source that WAS uses is not verified and hardly notable, and in fact, to a certain extent partisan.
        3. His co-mingling of a primary and unrelated secondary source is pure WP:SYNTH: primary material cannot be used to support secondary material, it must be the other way around.
        4. Creating a summary for structuring articles is indeed a positive one, however, this summary neither stems from WP:ATT sources, nor meets NPOV, nor has had wider community support, nor comes from a long discussion. He just was bold and started making them, with congratulatory messages from supporters. This is AfD is an attempt to revert the instances when this was too bold.
        5. He implemented his summary, to a large extent, as a meta-POV fork of factory farming, in order not to expand wikipedia, but bury factory farming. Most of these articles in fact contain very little material, and answers like "expand it" are very disingenious. None of these articles, in their current form, meet WP:SUMMARY criteria for legit forks, and in some cases overly repeat the same material and pictures.
        6. Disregards completely previous content, violates GFDL in many cases, in particular when forking content. This is an egregious mis use of the ability to freely edit and shows a complete disrregard for the effort that for years other editors have put into this. Just because WAS decided his way was the best, and found a receptive audience in a defined set of POV activists, doesn't make his contribution a good one.
        7. The contents of many of the articles is WP:SYNTH in that it presents an unverified, and lightly sourced multi-page narrative. Articles must stand alone as a narrative, they do not. In fact, Industrial farming (animals) is a conflagration of several loosely related topics that already have their own pages, or belong in factory farming. Farming cows and fish is not even the same professional field. This is another POV fork, but I proposed merge instead of deletion, because Industrial agriculture is actually a highly verifiable topic, and indeed Factory farming can be turned into a subpage of it, if properly structured and sourced. For example, many sources speak of factory farming and industrial farming as synonymous, but a number do speak about factory farming as part of a wider field. After this AfD, and the related industrial agricultures, I am going after "intensive" and other such POV forks: there is no contemporary form of intensive agriculture that is not industrial. And while there is indeed industrial agriculture that is not intensive, the difference do not meet WP:SUMMARY criteria for forking. These forks are all the creation of WAS' mind and proposal. I cannot understand how editors, so keen in pushing POV, are letting their personal vendettas blind them to the extreme damage we are doing to wikipedia by allowing this type of WP:OWN structure to exist unfettered.
        8. WP:SYNTH clearly establishes the primacy of verified secondary sources, before primary or tertiary sources come into place. In wikipedia, I think, there are two types of editing: one is the debate and talk page, which should be about discussing sources, narratives, etc. In there, we can perform original research, synthesis, etc. Pretty much anything is allowed. But in the article, we must follow rules. For example, we cannot say "factory farms posion people", but we can say "Mr Notable, saiid that factory farms poison people".
        9. You are correct, the vast majority of wikipedia doesn't meet its own content policies. However, it is a long established practice to prefer inclusion to deletion, with some exceptions like WP:BLP. This is why we have cleanup tags for OR, verification, OR synthesis etc. However, it is also long established practice to have extra care with controversial subjects (which is why WP:BLP exists!). Some controversial topics have citations on almost every sentence, and sometimes multiple citations per sentence. Likewise, the community has a longstanding tradition of opposing POV forking, specially in controversial articles. It is particularly harsh with POV forks that happen in the middle of ongoing controversies. That is the case here, and why it should be deleted, and why I have proposed merges of other pages.
        10. Lastly WAS' constant personal attacks (which you and others don't even deny but simply dismiss as "harshness" and are so WP:POINTy editors have abandoned the talkpage in protest) his denial of formal mediations accepted by almost all involved editors, and in general despicable behavior (he even wikistalked to other articles, even an ArbCom I am involved in to try to propose stuff, on a topic and article he has never edited or participated on until he saw I did), led me to invoke the clause in WP:AGF that allows editors to stop assuming good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.
Man, everyone here can tell you I make a religion out of "assume good faith". To the point people call sanctimonious and shit.
I have collaborated with people I have had serious confrontations with. I am not easy to get to abandon good faith, not after learning how useful it is to move the encyclopedia forward.
This guy is really the first editor ever that makes me do this. This individual must be brought under control. And his bad-faith POV forks, like this one, fixed. In my view, bad faith is inherited - a taint - and those who defend might get a tad of it too if they are not careful. He has shown some willingness to repent in the past, as he did here, and then almost immediately over turn it, as he did here. How can I trust him if all he gives is reasons not to trust him?--Cerejota 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, I have never even clicked on your contributions list link. WAS 4.250 06:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a grab bag of pretty much any controversial subject having to do with agriculture. Lots of the subjects don't have anything to do with commerce on any scale (e.g. the section on fois gras). If we should even talk about the ostensible subject, it would obviously be a major section within industrial agriculture (which is pretty empty). In the ongoing attempt to get away from the term "factory farming", this is not the solution. Mangoe 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you say has some merit, I've noted that some topics associated with factory farming are simply unsavoury practices, and there is a logical assumption that if it is unsavoury and farming then it must be factory farming. The grab bag argument does rather apply to farming in general if you try and relate independent methods of farming different crops and animals, each having their own distinct issues into one article. On that basis I'd suggest that it is a reflection of an immature article, rather than fatally flawed. Spenny 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article that doesn't get beyond the "immature" stage because of the constant disruption of efforts to write it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spenny is talking about Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. SlimVirgin is talking about factory farming. Misunderstandings like this are the very basis of the problem. As slim and I have joked, it seems like we all have bananas in our ears - but everyone is absolutely sure it is the other guys who have bananas in their ears. WAS 4.250 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the same article, because it is one article. All you've done is create content forks because you don't like it, while at the same time disrupting efforts to improve it. And you and I have not joked about anything. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a fact based statement. The sources I used to identify relevant content are ( Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics article Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand The Regional Institute article EVOLUTION OF THE FARM OFFICE Learning Seed ). Further this article is a subarticle of industrial agriculture because it is too large to go there. In fact this article needs to be expanded to the point that it has many more subarticles. Finally your assumptions about my motivation "getting away from factory farming" are irrelevant, incorrect, and a personal insult. WAS 4.250 22:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:POTty training you need. You see what we have to deal with? Any rational argument is met by this person in this fashion. And his cheerleaders/meapuppets just urge him on, hiding behind "civil" faces. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... Unbelievable. And you claim WAS is the one being incivil? Jav43 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • After excusing the wanton, uncalled for uncivility, you have no right to speak about civility. You should have thought about it before not defending a fellow wikipedian before a wanton attack for POV reasons. I am incresingly unable to assume good faith after the behavior you exhibited in defending WAS after his latest round of attacks. --Cerejota 20:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random break 1[edit]

  • Keep but rename, refocusDelete and merge most of contents into factory farming and other articles. The movement against factory farming, and the body of popular and academic literature on the subject, is itself a notable and worthy subject for an article. It's quite an important thing in the evolution of agriculture and food in the US and probably the rest of the world. Much of the slow food movement, organic movement, local / sustainable food, farmers markets, and even perhaps changes in diet and cuisine, can be traced to an opposition to factory farming. The actual details about factory farming belong in a factory farming article. I'm not sure you can resolve this without resolving the dispute over there, because any well-sourced, valid, useful information should not just be deleted because the people editing the target article are too busy disputing things to accept it. Wikidemo 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidemo, would you mind clarifying for the sake of the closing admin. You are voting to delete the title, is that right, but move the content to factory farming and other appropriate articles that already exist? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and/or merge is ok with me. I just want people to add sourced data instead of delete sourced data, or waste all their time reverting between versions. SlimVirgin and I have both repeatedly asked people to add sourced data instead of revert war. This article is an effort on my part to do just that. WAS 4.250 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin and you have not asked people to add sourced data. I have asked for that. You've repeatedly added your own opinions and created POV forks. And there's no need for you to add a comment every time someone else expresses a view. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 May 2007 I said: "May I suggest that we agree to have different articles edited by different sides of this little edit war and each side in the edit war agree not delete anything the other side puts on "their" article, but can add stuff, but if its deleted let it stay deleted for now. Then we can compare the different articles to see what is better and what is worse. This could be done on a subpage, but I think we can do it at Factory farming (Slim and friends get to "own" it), Intensive farming (Slim and friends let it alone and don't keep making it a redirect), Industrial agriculture (starts with the non-slim version of this article that is being edit wared between). I would hope we could all borrow from each other and eventually wind up with a way to agree to merge common items and perhaps wind up with three good articles or one good article depending on whatever consensus evolves over time. I think the main thing is to get on with the writing of sourced content. Slim deleted good stuff at Intensive farming and slim's opponets deleted good stuff slim added to this article. Let's add, not delete. WAS 4.250 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)" Copied from Talk:Factory farming/Archive 2#Suggestion : Let's add, not delete. WAS 4.250 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind the comment to my view. 90-95% of the sourced material is about the subject of factory farming and related matters so they belong in Factory Farming or related articles. "Challenges to" an industry, in the sense of adversities and problems, is not a notable subject. Every industry has challenges. The other 5-10% concerns critics and criticism of factory farming, which is a bona fide movement that is notable and worth its own article. If there is already such an article it should be moved there. Earlier I had thought we should keep the article for that 5-10% but now that I look closer I've changed my mind. What's salvageable here is barely worth a stub. If someone wants to create or expand an article about the anti-factory farming movement they should just save a copy of this article and start a new one from scratch. For anyone who really wants to see this all in one place, a properly sourced article with that focus would be fine I think. So I "vote" for deletion...even though this isn't a vote, and if it were mine as a casual observer is not much. Cheers, Wikidemo 00:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just ask that you please remember that this article is about industrial agriculture, not factory farming. There IS a difference, and that difference is important. Confusing the two terms would reasonably result in deleting this article - please do not confuse the terms. Jav43 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please produce reliable sources that show there's a difference. We've produced dozens of mainstream sources that show the terms industrial farming, intensive farming, and factory farming are used interchangeably. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have. You have provided exactly one source. If I have enough time, I'll try to find another half-dozen, but finding additional sources for you becomes tiring when you don't read those I provide. Jav43 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Horrigan, Leo et al. How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environment and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives; May2002, Vol. 110 Issue 5, p445 | "The grain raised to supply feedlots (cattle) and factory farms (chickens, hogs, veal calves) is grown in intensive monocultures that stretch over thousands of acres, leading to more chemical use and exacerbating attendant problems . . . In recent decades, however, industrial agriculture has increasingly separated animals from the land. More and more meat production is occurring in concentrated operations commonly called factory farms." -- Not a pure definition like those I provided before, but I ran out of time to locate more relevant articles. Jav43 13:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That writer is using industrial agriculture as another term for factory farming, at least in relation to animals. I see you didn't supply a link for some reason. Here is the article. Jav, in all your months of arguing, you've not produced one source that makes a distinction between the two. We have provided dozens of mainstream sources, including the BBC, Reuters, and CNN, that use the terms interchangeably. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding here to today's latest physically scattered comments by SlimVirgin. This is what a merge looks like without even merging in Industrial agriculture (animals) or Industrial agriculture (crops). It is too big. The solution to summaries that you find lacking in criticism is to add the criticism to the summary. Summaries of existing articles were taken from the lead sections of those articles so I did not delete any summary criticism. And if needed criticism is lacking then it is also lacking in the lead of those articles. The solution is to add it to the article lead and to the summary both. Far from trying to move all criticism to some dump article (and my comment that you go on about is about others making it a dump, not me wanting it to be a dump), I encourage a summary style in which the summaries and the leads of the articles both accurately reflect the article and the article accurately and with due weight covers the topic of the article. Again the solution is add sourced data. You either know full well that I have added sourced content not from other articles or else you have not bothered reading the article you voted to delete. Or did you vote to delete? Now you say you just voted to merge the content. So if this article is deleted you won't mind me adding the contents elsewhere, right? Tell you what. Why don't we keep this article and all the others and improve them? Add sourced criticism to where it should be and not only won't I delete it, but I'll copy it to the lead of the main article that is being summarized. You and your friends simply do not seem to get it into your heads that I am not trying to do what you think I'm trying to do. You threw good faith out the window before I ever arrived at factory farming and because I disagreed with you you assume bad faith. Let us add sourced data. No one is stopping you from fixing article leads that lack balance, and I'm not at fault for article leads that I did not write. And the material (half to a fourth?) in the article that I wrote is balanced in my opinion. WAS 4.250 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, you might well have a point on length etc. I am sympathetic to it. What I dislike is the inclusion of material based on a WP:SYNTH map of your own creation. Please read WP:OWN. I say we merge, and then we start a WP:SUMMARY discussion, in which we measure the notability, reliability and verifiability of the material in question. I am willing to bet that the article can be shortened significantly, and that there Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and in many specialized scientific subjects, thigs like specific species of life etc are not included, or included in large articles, because they fail notability on their own. Simply because *you* want to disucuss some obscure technique of zero-emissions aquaculture in great detail, it doesn't mean it belongs in wikipedia. Notability also applies to technical and scientific material. This is all part of my sense of WP:SYNTH., which includes this article as an egrerious POV fork that even copies images and text in violation of GFDL. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a big difference in what is viewed as notable between the two contending sides at factory farming. Forgive me if I poorly state the difference, but I would describe it as "your" side highly valuing content from newspapers and "my" side highly valuing content from academic and other experts. So for example, an important politician's comment about a factory farming bovine spongiform encephalopathy problem gets in the news and y'all figure that means it belongs in the lead at factory farming. While experts who evaluate industrial agriculture issues list bovine spongiform encephalopathy as one of many biosecurity problems (e.g. pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugarcane smut) and list biosecurity as just one of many challenges and issues faced by the industrial agriculture industry (marketing, consumer tastes, international trading environment, infrastructure, management skills and labor supply, coordination, technology, water and other resource access issues issues).[32] So from the point of view of using experts to decide what is notable, the approach of using whatever appears on the newspaper's front page looks like original research and synthesis. And just because an expert says it, that does not make it a primary source. WAS 4.250 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Your side" has not used academic and other expert sources to support your argument. You haven't used any! It's your own personal opinion that industrial, intensive, and factory farming refer to different practices as they relate to animals. You've not produced one source who supports you. All the sources produced so far — including industry sources and mainstream news organizations — use the terms interchangeably. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim you are talking about something completely and totally different than what I am talking about. And you are also incorrect. WAS 4.250 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you to produce one reliable source who clearly and unambiguously uses the terms "industrial farming," "intensive farming," and "factory farming" differently as they relate to animals. As for your OR argument, you've never understood the OR policy; looking around to see how mainstream sources use terms is exactly what we're supposed to do when there's a dispute about how to use them. As for this — "While experts who evaluate industrial agriculture issues list bovine spongiform encephalopathy as one of many biosecurity problems (e.g. pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugarcane smut) and list biosecurity as just one of many challenges and issues faced by the industrial agriculture industry (marketing, consumer tastes, international trading environment, infrastructure, management skills and labor supply, coordination, technology, water and other resource access issues issues)," — it's not a sentence so I can't work out what you're trying to say. I also don't understand "And just because an expert says it, that does not make it a primary source." You seem also not to understand what a primary source is. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You changed your post after I had replied to it. [33] Please don't do that again. Here is what you added: "You are talking about the definition of "factory farming". I don't care all that much what definition we use so long as we don't use two different definitions in one argument. One can say "factory farming is industrial agriculture" or one can say "factory farming is "intensive animal farming" or even other definitions. But that no more makes one definition equal to another than the fact that the word "inflammable" means both can not catch fire and can catch fire means that things that can catch fire can not catch fire. Natural language word definitions do have a mathematical transitive relation."
What I am asking for, for the millionth time, is a reliable source that shows the terms are used differently in relation to animals. Please don't give me any more of your personal opinions. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care all that much what definition we use. You continue to not understand what I say. WAS 4.250 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While experts who evaluate industrial agriculture issues list bovine spongiform encephalopathy as one of many biosecurity problems (e.g. pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugarcane smut) and list biosecurity as just one of many challenges and issues faced by the industrial agriculture industry (marketing, consumer tastes, international trading environment, infrastructure, management skills and labor supply, coordination, technology, water and other resource access issues issues). WAS 4.250 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? It's not a sentence. While experts do X and Y, then ...? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "while" refers to the preceding sentence. WAS 4.250 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't make sense. You need to stop offering us your personal views. The chancellor of Germany called for an end to factory farming because of the BSE crisis. This is true, very significant, and well-sourced to the BBC, CNN etc. He did it because British scientists blamed BSE on factory-farming practises. This is also highly significant and well-sourced to the BBC, CNN etc. Whether other unnamed experts blame issues other than BSE on factory farming, and publish their concerns somewhere few people pay attention to is irrelevant; just because B is also true doesn't mean A should be minimized. If the Washington Post, the BBC, and CNN focus on an issue, it means it's a notable controversy, and it should be included in the lead according to WP:LEAD. Follow the policies and cite your sources, WAS. No more personal essays and POV forks. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When others speak it is their "personal views" and when you speak it is ... ? WAS 4.250 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent hours producing mainstream sources. I ask that you produce some too. As NOR says: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." If you would do that, this dispute would melt away. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random break 2[edit]

(<---)Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture#Sources and notes WAS 4.250 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't alter that it's a POV fork, and that all you did was copy and paste material from other articles in an effort to lose certain criticism. It seems to have been the addition to Factory farming of criticism from the German chancellor (a well-known animal rights extremist!) that set you off. Others have said you have a habit of creating POV forks. You've created at least three in this case, and it's caused a lot of disruption and ill-feeling, not to mention the personal attacks, so I can only join the many voices asking you to stop. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your unwarranted personal attacks and false unsubstantiated personal opinions are inappropriate. Please stop. WAS 4.250 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't stop. It's all justified criticism, made by several editors now, including completely uninvolved ones, which can be amply supported with diffs. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add here that I think you're in violation of the GFDL. You've copied material I've written and pasted it into other articles (and a lot of it, not just a few sentences), but without attributing it to me. Your edit summaries make it look as though you wrote that material, which is plagiarism. I pointed out at the time that it was a GFDL violation, and you told me I was talking nonsense, but I see others have said here that you've violated the GFDL elsewhere with the creation of POV forks. It's worth checking with someone who knows about these issues, because I think you're showing complete contempt for other people's work. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia talk:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted#What about people who claim contributions can not be moved from one article to another?. I would be happy to work with you to insure there exist edit summaries that you find satisfactory. WAS 4.250 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresented your query, and you were told that it was GFDL compliant if attributed. You did not attribute it. You plagiarized. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV, I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is the over-specialization and over-description of specialized topics that create this whole situation. Its exactly the same thing over "Factory farming" vs "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations". Some want to make this an unencyclopedic specialist source for agricultural information, while that is well beyond our mandate as an encyclopedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the aim may be to disarm people with technical terms. "Concentrated animal feeding operation" sounds more benign than factory farming. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(<---)There are several ways of looking at that.

  1. It could be argued that you just admitted that "factory farming" is a POV term compared to more technical and neutral terms that you disapprove of because they evoke less emotion.
  2. What I think is really going on in the dispute between me and Slim (I just figured this out today, but I may be wrong) is her desires to write about factory farming as represented by newspapers - in other words news of interest to the general public concerning factory farming; while I have an interest in writing about the history, science (university and corporate research and development), and management (by national entities, corporations, and individuals farmers) of industrial farming. Maybe the titles of the articles could be adjusted to deal with this? Management issues of industrial farming and so forth? WAS 4.250 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CAFO is not a "technical and neutral term." It was invented, as I recall, by the U.S. government. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't written anything that I'm aware of. You've copied (actually stolen, because you don't attribute it anywhere) other people's work. If I'm wrong, please supply some diffs showing what you've written yourself. I've asked this before, but you've never produced any.
And this is not a dispute between you and me. There are several people trying to deal with you on the talk pages, and I see other uninvolved editors here making the same point about your POV fork habit. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to make nasty assumptions and accusations based on "so far as I know". You have not presented evidence proving your personal attack, so stop making it. The slightest effort on your part would uncover text I wrote in this article.
I've looked and I can't find any. Please show us some diffs. As far as I can see, all you've is copy other people's work without attribution. It is plagiarism — intellectual dishonesty. Here are two examples: [34][35]. These are POV forks of other people's work. You don't say who the originating editors are in the edit summaries; you don't say which articles you've copied the material from; you don't move the titles and merge the histories. It's theft and I believe it's also a GFDL violation. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is your job to provide evidence of your allegations and not my job to obey your every arrogant command. You keep repeating yourself with nothing new and no evidence and no attempt to work together. I am not a masochist. Signing off for today. WAS 4.250 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above for examples, and there are others. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful content. Right now the article looks like an argumentative (or apologetic) essay which isn't surprising since the title lends itself to subjective writing. Type 40 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is potentially an encyclopaedic topic but the article is bedevilled by POV and unbalanced, unsourced statements. Each topic should be treated in a 'On the one hand', 'On the other hand' manner, with sources for both. Sadly, as many editors have commented above serious, important subjects are now splintered across too many articles. TerriersFan 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards future notability. Kurykh 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The getdown[edit]

The getdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lots of name dropping but no real assertion of notability. Film not yet released. -- RHaworth 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems hoaxy, can someone check the imdb for any info concerning it, also it reads like a promo. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Delete a quick search on the imdb returns no results [36], the fact that it was created by a single purpouse account its mighty suspicious also, so if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck a link to a single website doesn't convince me. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of sources....The site looks legit, but there's no other sources. IMDB does not even list this movie under Owen Wilson's credits Corpx 16:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I can address your questions and concerns about my article. I created my Wikipedia account to place an article about this movie on Wikipedia, but I am not trying to promote the film. Please help me to better understand why I am being flagged and how I might improve the entry. I came across the movie during production and after corresponding with the producers, gathered a great deal of information I feel is of general public interest. It is a real movie in post-production with the listed celebrity appearances, verifiable by viewing the film’s trailer. The director already has another movie on Wikipedia, which is searchable on IMDB, as is the lead actor in the film. The Getdown is not yet listed on IMDB because it is in post-production and slated for release in the first quarter of 2008. All information about the film is true and accurate. I have personally seen Owen Wilson’s signed release for his appearance in the film. The project is unique in that it has so many such appearances, but comes from an independent production team working with a small budget. I feel strongly that the film is noteworthy and of interest to the general public, and that information about it legitimately belongs on Wikipedia. Please help me to improve the entry so this matter can be resolved favorably for everyone! Thanks very much. SylviaMeyers 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources so far. When the film starts to get mainstream media coverage and gets listed in IMDb, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete; optionally merge in part to some appropriate article. No one has put forth any substantial argument (as opposed to WP:ILIKEITs) to keep this article, which is unsurprising given that it contains no reliable sources and does not even attribute this chess variant to anyone. Whether some content is salvageable and should be merged to e.g. Capablanca random chess is an editorial decision. To allow for a merger, I am not deleting the article outright, but redirecting it to Capablanca random chess. Sandstein 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimized Chess[edit]

Optimized Chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

This article does not assert any notability for this chess variant, which according to the article was "discovered anonymously in 2006" by someone called "OmegaMan". However, because of the tendentious nature of chess articles, I'm bringing it to AfD rather than just requesting speedy deletion.

In any case, as I said, this is a chess variant which is a year old. A Google search brings up only 40 non-Wikipedia hits for "optimized chess" and very few of them refer to this game. Needless to say, but none of these are reliable sources. I cannot find any independent reliable sources which assert or support the notability of this game. I urge deletion for this article, and all associated redirects and links. Haemo 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This game has been much maligned unfairly and vandalized recently by zealots of Gothic Chess, a commercial product. See its talk page and the talk page for Optimized Chess to objectively assess the shocking extent of their financially-motivated dirtywork against this free game which significantly, surely includes the manipulation of a reputable editor Haemo by someone misinforming him. The timing of this action defies any likelihood of coincidence. Especially for a new game, it is well known with more references deep within the discussion boards of chess variant hobbyists than the editor who nominated it for deletion could possibly realize. There have also been many inspired imitations of its features by other new games. Just read the article and follow its references for strong indicators that this game is NOT insignificant. Both of the two strongest, free multi-variant programs in the chess variant world, SMIRF & ChessV, selected this game with customized support for it. The significance of SMIRF & ChessV are well above being disputed. With chess variants, the games and the chess variant programs that play the games are intermeshed. In other words, the significance that SMIRF & ChessV have gained is attributable to the games they play AND the significance that certain, select games have gained is attributable to being played by SMIRF & ChessV. Even Gothic Chess is supported by neither program! Therefore, the significance that Optimized Chess has already gained is impressive. In time, this significance is probable to grow. There are certainly games of lesser significance listed in Wikipedia that have never been nominated for deletion. Also, it needs a page of its own to describe its unique features with sufficient detail and clarity. --InfoCheck
    • Comment, Gothic Chess is not allowed to be in either program, as neither author will pay the licensing fee for U.S. Patent #6,481,716 which is required of all programs that implement a game that searches and plays the game of Gothic Chess. You know this fact, yet you deliberately mislead people with your remarks. --(still unsigned even after request was read)
  • It is not my fault that Gothic Chess got itself excluded from the SMIRF & ChessV gamelists by being too expensive. You [Please sign your comments?] had the sole authority to prevent this unfortunate event by NOT being unreasonably greedy in negotiations. I never deceived anyone about Gothic Chess being a commercial product. That was clearly stated in the first sentence of the original remark. --InfoCheck
  • The licensing fee is $1 for a one year license for a software product that is not resold. You should check your facts before making such incorrect assertions. Your statement was: "Even Gothic Chess is supported by neither program! Therefore, the significance that Optimized Chess has already gained is impressive." You tried to fool people with your statement, as if your variant was supported out of its own merit, or being preferred over Gothic Chess. You are now looking very foolish as the truth comes out. I told them to keep Gothic Chess out of their software, and they complied. Therefore, your statment is a deliberate attempt at misdirection. The more you lie about it, the worse you look, so please, add more fuel to the fire. I can't wait to hear your next explanation. --GothicChessInventor 04:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has become impossible to communicate with you. There are too many contradictions between your various, vague remarks. My mistake was trusting you as a reliable source of information. For doing so, you reprimand me harshly for having misimpressions of the facts (the way you provided them).
First- You say "neither author will pay the licensing fee" as if it was a big deal breaker.
Second- You say "the licensing fee is $1" to condescend me for thinking it was any more than chump change.
Third- You say "I told them to keep Gothic Chess out".
So, are you saying that you were "unreasonably rude, disrespectful and uncooperative" with Reinhard Scharnagl (SMIRF) & Gregory Strong (ChessV) in negotiations instead of "unreasonably greedy"? [Based upon my experiences, I have little difficulty in believing that.] Just be decisive, clear and rational. Tell me your version of reality regarding the simple $1 deals you somehow totally messed-up with both Scharnagl & Strong and we can be done with this absurd discussion. Then, I can enjoy being "extra civil" again. --InfoCheck
  • Greg Strong said he did not want to pay $1 since he gave away his program for free under the GNU license, which prohibits monetary transactions of any kind. Reinhard is a native German speaker, and the technical terms in the contract did not translate in a manner that he felt comfortable with, and that's all. Michel Langeveld of The Netherlands had several Gothic Chess licenses at $1 per year, since his software was not for resale. BrainKing.com had three licenses at $1 each per year (2003, 2004, 2005) despite being a "for profit" business entity. HouseOfStaunton.com has a license to distribute Gothic Chess sets. Frank Camaratta is putting the finishing touches on his new Chancellor, then they will be offered for sale.
GothicChessInventor 04:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, this conversation is completely off-topic for this deletion debate. I urge you both to expend your energies here discussing the topic in hand (the notability, etc. of Optimized Chess), and not the ins and outs of the history of Gothic Chess. Oli Filth 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Well written article. Shabda 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a more appropriate location like Chess variants or Capablanca Chess. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to the individual notability of this variant. The same might be done for Embassy Chess and Gothic Chess. Though Gothic at least has some news coverage (inadequately referenced in the article itself though). However, it does seem to me that there's a significantly troublesome bit of a fracas going on involving these pages. Something might need to be done about that. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Capablanca Chess. Actually it is already present there in "Variants that postdate Capablanca Chess" section, so just making it a redirect would be fine. The game is not notable enough to have a separate article. Andreas Kaufmann 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chess is an exiting synthesis of decimal and dual approaches to board geometries preserving the Pawns' typical way to promotion and supporting all double combinations of Chess' elementary gaits of Rook, Bishop and Knight. Even though CRC covers most of the relevant named 10x8 starting arrays (or its mirrors) there is no need to hide some specialized models because of the existing of some more popular or commercial representants. Because of that it is to be welcomed, that some balanced starting arrays will get and improve their own named life. The public is invited to check out and popularize some of those approaches. But there is no need at all to extinguish references of such, e.g. simply because of the existence of a patented one. Sumerian 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid your argument isn't making much sense to me. Most of what you're talking about isn't directly related to the subject of this page. It would be much more appropriate to address the issue of notability directly, rather than digress into these issues. FrozenPurpleCube 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think this would make a fine section of Capablanca Chess (due to having some objective standard of being among the "best" arrangements), but I don't see enough notability established for this particular arrangement in the article. Have there been tournaments, even? — brighterorange (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who are voting to merge this article (which will destroy most of its content) may be holding the bar unreachably high. We are talking about chess variants here- not CHESS. Very few chess variants listed on Wikipedia have EVER had a formal tournament held on their behalf. The game you are voting on has attained as much progress as can realistically be expected for almost any chess variant ... in just over one year. Please reconsider your votes if you do not understand what level of popularity is realistic to expect for chess variants. --InfoCheck
    • I'm sorry, but I'm not voting. I'm discussing. Your arguments have been unpersuasive to me. It doesn't matter whether I don't know what a chess variant can obtain, more importantly, you've not provided reliable, third-party sources that even tell us what it has obtained. The best I can say is, merge it, leave the article history behind, and wait till further notability develops. If you want to offer more argument as to its notability, it won't be by saying this is as notable as it gets. That's not very notable at all. FrozenPurpleCube 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true, but that probably means that most chess variants shouldn't have articles. (But there are definitely chess variants that achieve notability, like Fischer Random Chess or Bughouse chess!) It's not that hard to make a variant, there are thousands, and certainly not all of them should have articles. — brighterorange (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to mention at this point that something is not notable simply because you like it, the information is useful or because it's interesting. If the contention is, as above, that this is as notable as a chess variant can become, then perhaps none of them are notable — since they all, apparently, fail our guidelines. --Haemo 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I would not go as far as to appraise that none of the chess variants that have Wikipedia articles meet the guidelines for notability but I would agree with the assessment that only a minority do. Mind you, I am not at all inferring that I think there are too many chess variants mentioned on Wikipedia. In fact, to passionate hobbyists like myself, there are far too few. I consider this specialized area severely underdeveloped and virtually empty since est. 2000 exist in published form. Its light presence upon Wikipedia fails to satisfy my curiosity as a reader. As a long-term goal, Wikipedia should strive for more quality games with greater detail. By contrast, unexpectedly destroying a page at the initiation of one editor that several editors have spent time in good faith building into its current state is destructive and not at all humorous or trivial. Situations such as this should never occur. Anyone who cares about making a judicious decision should take some of these realities into account. --InfoCheck
      • Ahem, the reality is, there's nothing surprising on instantaneous about the decision being made in this case, but rather a 5-day discussion to achieve consensus among editors. If you wish to make your case, I don't suggest you make it on the basis of attacking what are reasonable practices that give you a fair chance to articulate the reasons why this article should be kept. Concentrating on what you consider the injudicious nature of this process isn't actually beneficial to that position, and instead comes across as less than persuasive. Now I do agree there are times when a nomination is unwise, however, this isn't obviously one of them, but I do see there's some sort of dispute going on. I'm concerned that may be distracting you, as you're not seeing the valid concerns others who aren't even involved in that dispute have brought up. I know I looked for reasonable sources on this variant, and I didn't find any. You may not think there's too many chess variants on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly concerned about their dubious inclusion of many subjects on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Perhaps you might wish to try The Chess Wiki at Wikia.com instead? It looks like it could use some expansion and as a more specialized resource, it might have more open standards for inclusion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not a run around to getting a link on the "see also" section of another page deleted. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a really effective argument, as there's nothing stopping a "See Also" section from referring to an anchor and most of the comments here have suggested a merge. Besides, I don't know about anybody else, but my concerns aren't related to this other article at all. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing that I never replied to you, I am not sure how I could have categorized your concerns at all. AfD is not a proper forum to go shopping at after reaching a brick wall on a "See also" section inclusion. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I was just pointing out that my concerns aren't related to this other issue you're raising up. I honestly don't care about that at all, so your argument doesn't mean much to me. If you want to convince me this article should be kept, you'll have to address my own concerns. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Definitely an interesting variant of the the game, as outlined in the article. Embassy Chess should also be merged, as it is a nearly-identical game with a nearly identical article, so combining the two articles together into a single section on either Capablanca chess or Capablanca random chess would work well. Of course, the articles should be retained as redirects to the section in question, so the "see also" User:SevenOfDiamonds is concerned about losing could easily stay. JulesH 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Doesn't appear to be too notable but probably deserves mention. Same with Embassy Chess. ("discovered in 2005 by Kevin Hill", hahaha, Wikipedia articles say the darnedest things) Axem Titanium 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This are unique thoughts of a distinguished professional. Hey everyone knows who OmegaMan is, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.51.239.224 (talk • contribs)
    • Robert Neville? FrozenPurpleCube 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No but that is a logical guess (and a little tasteful humor is beneficial to all). The pen name discoverer is obviously a fan of the movie "The Omega Man". See the movie still at the bottom of this page: Opti Chess The real identify of OmegaMan has been common knowledge amongst many in the chess variant community since his first appearance. Recently, Derek Nalls put this note on Wikipedia for the benefit of editors: Opti Chess | talk See the "Right To Use Pen Name" section. --InfoCheck
        • Actually, the issue of a real identification would probably require going through something more robust than talk page and an e-mail. I think that'd be an OTRS resolved question. FrozenPurpleCube 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All. This lacks notability for it's own variation, and as has been argued above, all the others really lack it too, Gothic Chess mostly seems to survive so well here because of the advocacy and hawkish oversight of it's inventor, who regularly regulates the article. As all of them, at a glance, seem to consist primarily of variant placements of the non-pawn figures at game start, and maybe some tactical options based on said placements, it's probably best to merge them all for the content, and then create a 'list of capablanca variants' page with a table of opening positions, titles, and notes for tactical variances. ThuranX 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Capablanca chess or Capablanca random chess or into a new article with Embassy Chess and possible other related variants. Actually Optimized Chess does not even differ too much from Gothic Chess, whose main asset is that it has been aggressively marketed. Had Ed Trice ended up with the configuration Optimized Chess uses, we'd now be discussing the deletion of the Gothic Chess article. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just one of over 10,000 Capablanca_random_chess games. It should be noted, that there is not one photograph of one pair of people who have ever played this game, including the inventor, Derek Nalls, who is InfoCheck of course. Think of this logic: If we keep this variant, then do we need 10,000 pages for all of the other Capablanca_random_chess games that are not being played also? This game exists on paper, on the pages of Wikipedia, and nowhere else. As for ZeroOne's remark that it is similar to Gothic Chess, that is simply not true. There is only 1 piece on the back rank that is similar, and that is the King's placement. All of the other 9 pieces are on different squares. As I am Ed Trice, I can tell you that I resent that ZeroOne is allowed to put words in my mouth. I suggest that he remove my name from the appropriate section of the above that he made. Take a look at the diagrams shown here: <diagrams removed by User:Isotope23... see them at the bottom of the page here> GothicChessInventor 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as the claimed inventor of GothicChess you might be perceived as having a conflict of interest here, thus I suggest you carefully restrain your commenting as it could be your participation might be inflammatory. Thus it'd be best to keep your words extra civil. The same would go with Infocheck, if your claim that he is the person who invented Optimized Chess is true. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Did anyone read the opening remark on this page for "keep"? It was a malicious remark made against me for no apparent reason. This was suppose to be about the variant that is slated for removal, and I had nothing to do with it. That person should be the one subject to conflict of interest focus, as it is his own game that he is defending.GothicChessInventor 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that as may be, I think this situation demonstrates the value of careful discretion before getting involved in subjects where one or more parties have a personal interest. And yes, I was bothered about it when I first began reading this discussion. It does trouble me. However, AFD is not the place to resolve that. I just hope it doesn't have to go to arbitration. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, would you mind removing the diagrams? They're likely to mess up the formatting of this discussion, and I don't feel they add much to the discussion. If you do wish to use them, putting something up in your user space and linking to it might be better. FrozenPurpleCube
      • Comment I don't see you mentioned in the opening comment. You appear to be interpreting the phrase "zealots of Gothic Chess" as a reference to yourself, whereas I don't believe it was intended to be one. JulesH 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I like JulesH's idea. --Chuck Sirloin 21:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ThuranX and ZeroOne. MookieZ 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I removed the diagrams that were messing up the formatting of the AFD, but I left a link to history if anyone cares to see them.--Isotope23 talk 13:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This chess variant is a very recent invention (2006 according to the article), and I cannot see that it has gained much independent attention, nor a wide enough audience of players to make it notable. Inventing new versions of chess is easy, making them notable is hard but essential to make it a valid topic. Several variants have gained a real claim to notability due to a large player base and/or mention in other references (e.g. bughouse chess and kriegspiel), but it is far too early to tell if this is one of them. (On another note, calling this game "optimized chess" is rather presumptious and looks like a marketing gimmick, how is this game "optimized" compared to just plain chess?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game is free. So, any "marketing gimmick" is not applicable. The game got its name "optimized" (not intended to sound presumptuous) as the discoverer's attempt to describe the unusually-high stability or defensive strength of its select CRC position. There are only two CRC positions that meet the long list of criteria on its page. --InfoCheck
  • Everything you mention above is all hype. Defensive strength? Nobody plays this game. There is not one photograph showing anyone play. The game exists on paper and Wikipedia only. I showed your setup to a National Master, who said: "No chess player in their right mind would play this." If you want, I can have this annoucement made on chess.fm this Thursday night for verification. I'll save it as an MP3 file so every chess variant page can link to it. --GothicChessInventor 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because:
  1. I do not want to vote for Delete as I appreciate the work InfoCheck and others have done on this article, which looks like much more than a stub. This article is doing no harm by itself, and I generally prefer to greet than to delete :-)
  2. I cannot vote for Keep because this article seems to have zero notability, and this is a silver-bullet argument for me. The role of Wikipedia is not to give new games their chance, whether they deserve it or not. The role of Wikipedia is to talk about games that have already gained fame. SyG 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No less notable than many other game variants which have their own article, and a game this young should have plenty of time to gain popularity and additional information.(RookZERO 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep after reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule I can no longer assume good faith in the editors asking deletion. -- Petri Krohn 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about me? You only need one good argument to convince deletion, and should think a 1-year old chess variant that gets 40 GHits and is credited to someone named "OmegaMan" probably isn't notable. --Haemo 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that it only exists on Wikipedia, it is not played anywhere. No photograph of anyone playing it exists, not even by the creator. A game is not a game if it has never been played. There is not one "move list" showing a completed game. There is not a website dedicated to it. It exists merely in the mind of its creator. Therefore, why have it at all? Let him build up demand for his game and resubmit it for consideration when he has an audience that extends beyond himself. You can see from his own writing that he wants to use Wikipedia to "advertise" for it, by his own admission. GothicChessInventor 04:18, 18 August 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 and clear consensus and apparently the copyright issue has been resolved. Non-admin closure.--JForget 01:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep brain stimulation[edit]

Deep brain stimulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article contains significant text from the journal Nature, http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/1301408a.html;jsessionid=0016FB4E9E6717DAC69AFF2B4D72EC5F Alterego 06:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I believe I've rewritten the infringing section; the article as a whole doesn't appear to be affected. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sections of a page that may be copyright violations is not a reason to bring a page to AFD. It's better to clean up the page, and rewrite/remove the offending sections. Recurring dreams 09:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly legitimate article and Zetawolf has taken the action the nominator might have done instead of bringing this to AfD. Nick mallory 11:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, goodness. Thanks for fixing the copyvio, Zetawoof; I'm embarrassed that I didn't check for one sooner,[37] since I've watched the article on and off for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep per Zetawoof's rewrite. Perfectly valid article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The objection to possible copyright vio has been removed by Zetawoof's rewrite. Mandsford 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the rewrite is very nice the article is legitimate now yuckfoo 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I didn't have time to find the exact edit in question and was told in IRC to list the article on AfD. thank you for cleaning it up. It was only through chance that I found it. I read the nature abstract and wanted to learn more about deep brain stimulation. I was reading the article and lo and behold, didn't this seem familiar! I would like to see that edit removed from the database completely. How do we do that? --Alterego 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. If I am reading things correctly, the nomination has been withdrawn and no one has made any argument to delete this article. RFerreira 19:06, 12 August 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eComXpo[edit]

Tagged as {{db-repost}}, which it isn't, but there are still some advertising concerns. Unfortunately only two other editors other than the nominator spoke up in the previous nomination, so the question remains: is this notable enough to stick? RFerreira 06:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are WP:RS, all are web-only publications connected to the industry, blogs and/or press releases. No secondary source verification is forth coming either, in lieu of reliable primary sources. I have no idea how you can state there is verification and reliability. Thanks! --Cerejota 08:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give an idea of how unreliable the google notability test is when dealing with companies, I perfomed the same search excluding besides wikipedia, youtube, all of the associated websites to this company, the microsoft ad syndication site, prweb.com, and some other random sites that are obvious paid or unpaid ads (like what this article is)and came up with a bit more than 11,000 hits, from the 54,000 originally[38] this an incredible difference with just a few sites included in the exceptions. Just excluding the few directly associated sites reduce the number by more than 20,000 hits! Unfortunately for eComXpo, wikipedians also happen to have first hand knowledge in SEO, and hit bloating, some of us probably invented the techniques you are using, so we catch it. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Siva1979. Note: I created the article again without being aware of the fact that it was previously deleted. I also asked repeatedly other editors who indicated that they don't like the tone of the article ("advert") to make modifications to the article to tone it down. I asked for help, because I don't see it written an advertisement. Notability within the subject of affiliate marketing is IMO out of the question. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is your own page, two are press releases... man, talk about WP:COI...--Cerejota 08:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI? Since when is using something WP:COI? I have no personal or professional gain from the article in Wikipedia, nor am I particular biased regarding this conference. Regarding press releases. Do you know how press releases work? Do you know how often press releases are referenced by Wikipedia articles? The press releases are reference for the attendee figures and my old blog post from over a year ago is a reference to the user experience. I don't mind removing that one, because it is not used to verify important facts. IT only provides an eyewitness report of an user of the system. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are no way affiliated with this company? I mean, we know you have an interest in the affiliate market... But I will take your word for it. In any case IT only provides an eyewitness report of an user of the system. is a disingeneous statement. It provided your opinion of the system, in other words WP:OR. This is why blogs are not reliable sources, anyone can post a blog and say whatever they want. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am virtually affiliateted with everybody who is somebody in the affiliate marketing industry. Even though its growing quickly and is not as small as it used to be, lets say 5-6 years ago, is it still somewhat managable to keep track of who is who (at least the ones who matter). But the affiliation is negligible in respect to this discussion. Whatever I gained from that affiliation, is less than the time I spent on the subject at Wikipedia (if I would attach a hourly rate to it, what I don't). I was on a panel last year at the eComXpo, came to being because of somebody else who asked me to do it. eComXpo only happened to be the venue for the panel. It could have been any other industry conference as well, e.g. Affiliate Summit, Ad:tech, Search Engine Strategies, CJU, Linkshare Summit etc. I emailed John Grosshandler to get one missing figure for the article and he was surprised and asked me why I did add an article to Wikipedia. I pointed him to this post of mine [39], which illustrated some of my motivations. He said thank you, said Hi to me, when we met briefly for a minute or two at Affiliate Summit in July (again) and that's it. I did not get any money, perks or "special" speaking arrangements at his conference. I also did not asked for it, because it is not why I am here at Wikipedia. Here you have it. Detailed disclosure. If you have any questions, let me know. I made public who I am, what I do and why I do it for everybody to see. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention that I did not get a penny for all of this? Including the panel. Professionally engagement does not mean business relationship (where money exchanges hands). Just FYI. I mention this, because one editor is currently running around screaming "COI", "COI". Nix COI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close as per WP:CORP. No notability from reliable sources, out of 7 sources, 2 are press releases (the most unreliable of unreliable sources), another is from a website (WebMasterRadio.fm) affiliated (in the text of the article!) with this company, and yet another from the website of the guy who created the article in the first place. The other sources are from minor web publications focused on the industry. This page is not only a blatant advert, but basically WP:OR! Delete, we are not for WP:SOAPBOXing or for WP:OR. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute right here that "iMedia Connections" and "AffiliateTip.com" are "minor" web publications in the affiliate marketing space. AffiliateTip.com is for example a Google News Source for a very long time, due to its importance in that industry. I would also not call "The Web Host Industry Review" a minor publication. The WebmasterRadio reference is for the fact that recordings are available for download and if you listen to the recordings, they will validate that they were broad casted on the air Live at the time of the event. Don't just pick any reference without looking at, what the reference is actually for. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are the worse kind of sources in they represent the opinion of the company about itself. Thaye are allowed as primary sources, but in this AfD they are being used to claim notability. I dispute this use of a self-serving marketing document. They can be useful in an article as a way to do "The company claims X" formulations, but in no way to claim notability, as is being done here when people claim the article is "well sourced". All I have to do is pay PRweb.com some money and they will publish whatever I want, that is precisely why press release are not reliable sources. Please re-read WP:RS and WP:CORP (which specifically bans the use of press releases and press release use by secondary sources as a way to establish notability).
As to the other sources, yes perhaps they are notable in their market niche, but notability in wikipedia is dependent on much more than that. Are they nationally notable beyond their niche? Unlike when talking about countries, in which national notability is enough, WP:CORP is very clear: Secondary sources first, then primary sources. There are no secondary sources that establish notability, none at all. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Last time I checked what is considered Notable and what is considered Verifiable and Reliable Sources, did it not state anywhere that an article must be of national or international importance. But even if this is your criteria, affiliate marketers generated roughly $6.5 billion in commissions last year (worldwide) and its growing. eComXpo is the largest conference (in attendance) in the space and not only has exhibitors and attendants from the United States, but from around the world, including UK, Germany, Israel and Asia. $6.5 billion is a lot, but it is a niche at the same time, if you consider that just the marketing spend in 2006 in the United States alone (offline and online) was about $615 billion. $90 billion of that was spent online. (eMarketer). $17 billion was for advertising, which includes search, email, display ads and affiliate marketing. (IAB). The biggest chunk of that is made up by search engine marketing, which started to get more main stream media coverage only recently. A bit over a year ago was it as much of a nice as affiliate marketing. Just FYI and to put things into perspective. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedily so. Notwithstanding the letter of the law about how exact duplication of previously required before calling this a repost, the same problems mention in the first AFD seem to be present here. Still a thinly disguised advert that's badly sourced (despite numerous requests for actual reliable sources), with no real evidence of real-world notice or impact. --Calton | Talk 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft noticed, but it was an advert, that they will be present at the event. I do not uses cheesy references like that to make it look good. Did you also notice, who attended and had booths there? I would consider this alone evidence of "real world notice". And again, the notability refers to the affiliate marketing industry and not everybody on earth. Please consider this context, before making your statements. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there are many reliable sources to support this article yuckfoo 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There a none, closing admin should examine this false claim. There are no secondary sources that establish notability as per WP:CORP. This is not a sopabox for advertising. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a false claim, I've just reviewed the article and there are half a dozen independent sources on the subject. Can you please elaborate? Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed the reference to my personal blog from the article for the reasons stated above. I also added references from the Chicago Tribune (Print Edition), MSNBC, and Microsoft adCenter to the article. I assume that those publications are not considered "minor". --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I studied the sources. 1) The Microsoft ad center is a blog posting. This is far from reliable, even if it s from Microsoft, and is in fact a primary source of Microsoft participating in a event: Microsoft participates in hundreds of such events around the world daily, so this hardly establishes notability. 2) MSNBC and Chicago Tribune articles are both clearly primary sources based on press releases and/or direct interviews, which do not establish notability: newspapers and news media frequently report on small companies as a way to provide filler. WP:CORP requires secondary source notability, and not a single secondary source (albeit multiple sources are required) is provided. None of the sources meet this criteria, and the arguments connecting the different primary sources are WP:SYNTH original research. Again, corporations and organizations must meet special criteria for notability as per WP:CORP, and this is not being met, and your attempts at WP:SYNTH only increase the reasons to delete: not only it fully violates WP:CORP but it is also original research. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commment The MSNBC and Chicago Tribune use also content from press releases, but it is not a republished press release, which would not matter much, but I wanted to state that. That is what press releases are for! They are for the press, that they can pick it up, validate the facts and write a story about it (which is often only a slightly modified version of a press release). This is how the majority of content in the media is created. It might be (most likely be) channeled through a big news agency such as Reuthers first, but it boils down to the same thing. Not every press release is being picked up by the media though. Actually most press releases are not. The media only picks the ones they believe to be NOTEWORTHY!. Just FYI, in case you did not know who things work in that business. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant what knowledge we have of the process in abny business. WP:CORP sets the barrier of notability higher than usual precisely because of knowledge of how the business works. However, I do happen to have professional knowledge in this respect, and know that articles solely containing press release information are used as filler (as I already stated), and hence are unreliable markers for notability. I ask again, please provide secondary sources that establish notability. All you get is primary sources steeming from the same press releases. Simple media interest is not the same as (although it is part of) notability.Please re-read and study WP:CORP, you seem to continue to miss its criteria. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is very much important for WP:CORP. A press release on the companies website is not enough to make the company notable as per WP:CORP (the ones in the article that fall under this category were also not meant to establish notability, but are reference for some of the statements made in the article, just FYI). If a larger and well respected publisher of the news media picks up a story based on a press release, then adds its own comments to it (or not) and publishes it, notability is established. They picked that story out of hundreds of stories they could choose from every day, checked the material and considered it important enough to be publicized online and/or in print. They established notability for the subject. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Its an encyclopedia, remember?! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of WP:CORP is incorrect: secondary sourcing as defined by WP:RS is clear in that a simple newspaper article is not sufficient. It must be an article that goes beyond republishing a press release. A simple mention doesn't cut it. If we were to include every corporation that gets mentioned in the media, we would become a business directory, which we are not. Precisely because we are an encyclopedia you must understand why this content is not encyclopedic and notable, corporations mentioned here should have transcendental importance as market leader is mass markets, or in fields that are highly notable, or meet other criteria that warrants encyclopedic coverage. In this case that criteria is simply not met, and your highly novel interpretation of what constitutes a secondary source is very interesting but ultimately fallacious. You are applying to a corporation the criteria we apply to individuals, which is patently incorrect. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note regarding the MS blog. A blog happens to be the publishing medium of choice by all major search engines. Where content is published is not important if it is about Verifyability. As you might noticed, the post at the MS blog stated "Microsoft adCenter is a premier sponsor of this event". This verifies statements made by eComXpo themselves (which is not considered a verification of their own claims), that companies like Microsoft have strong interest in the event and even became premium sponsors of the event. They don't do that for any use group or irrelevant conference nobody in the industry even heart of, that happens to discuss search marketing. References in the article have multiple purposes. They have to establish notability and verify the claims made in the article to show that it is not original research and that the stated figures are actually real facts. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the secondary problem with the article. What you just did is called synthesis, a form of original research. It is taking source A and source B and arriving at conclusion C, like you do above. Since the entire article is built in this fashion, creating a novel narrative not supported by secondary sources, that alone is a reason for deletion.
I did? Please elaborate. I think that the article misses some nice flow to make it better readable. Its currently mearly a collection of facts and statements from other sources. I assume that this is also the reason why somebody believed that this is a repost of a deleted article. I did not write the article that was deleted. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, you seem to be confused about blogs. WP:RS specifically says that all blogs are unreliable sources, and are to be handled with care, and only as primary sources. Microsoft's blog is a blog, and hence an unreliable primary source, and cannot be used, at all for WP:CORP notability. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct, at least not anymore. There were a number of debates going on regarding this, especially since more and more publications use a blog as the medium of choice for online publishing. Some reputable publications switched to the blog format entirely already and other stated using it in addition to their existing software (e.g. WSJ and NYT). This discussion needed to come to a consensus during the nomination of the Search Engine Optimization article for Featured Article (it's a FA now). This was necessary, because the majority of publications being made in the search engine marketing space (and internet marketing industry in general) is done via a blogging platform of some sort today. Blogs today are more than simple "weblogs" and personal diaries. Wikipedia had to adjust the related guidelines e.g. WP:V and WP:RS among others to adapt to the changing reality. You can start at the [article nomination discussion] and then follow the references to discussions elsewhere from there to learn more about this. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject appears to be notable within its niche, and is adequately referenced with non-trivial and reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:N requirements. Yamaguchi先生 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is irrelevant here. Applicable policy is WP:CORP. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is well referenced... too damn much in list form rather than paragraph form... but that requires a cleanup not a deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well referenced? It isn't. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears well-referenced to me as well. Sniping every other comment isn't winning you any points here. We all understood your position 10 edits ago. Burntsauce 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is more than reasonably referenced, attributing multiple reliable sources. Cerejota has argued that blogs are not to be used as sources, and although this article no longer relies on such sources, there are mitigating factors which do allow blogs and even Usenet articles as sources. Take a look at the James D. Nicoll article, as well as the state it was in when I nominated it for deletion [40] and the discussion surrounding it. Even I can see past all the stammering, stomping, and hand waving here and acknowledge that this subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks well referenced to me as well. Subject notable within its niche. bbx 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Guru Deva Om[edit]

Jai Guru Deva Om (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A sentence taken out of the lyrics of two songs. Hardly notable. Sfacets 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree with the nominator that this phrase is not notable. A quick google search shows up a few thousand hits for this phrase. It is also possible to verify this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are literally tons of phrases like this in Sanskrit & other Indian languages and while there are google hits, I could not find any that are reliable sources Corpx 06:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable beyond the songs themselves (from whom the ghits presumably emanate). David Mestel(Talk) 07:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JIP | Talk 07:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was listening to a CD on the Vedas and they mentioned the word "deva." Being a Beatle's fan, I then wondered what this phrase meant. Here I was able to find out. taz50man 14 August 2007
  • Deva just means "God" Corpx 13:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I understood deva means God, but this Wikipedia entry allowed me to understand what Lennon meant by the phrase "Jai Guru Deva Om." taz50man 14 August 2007

comment- the phrase can just as easily be explained on the articles about the songs... Sfacets 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)\\[reply]

  • Comment I agree that putting the explanation into the "Across The Universe" article and the "All This Is That" article and deleting the "Jai Guru Deva Om" article is a good compromise. But that puts the same text in two places, with the accompanying maintenance burden. taz50man 15 August 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Singularity 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten O'Clock Classics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ten O'Clock Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's not enough reliable source material that is independent of Ten O'Clock Classics for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you remove the information taken from the Ten O'Clock Music website, the article is down to two sentences. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Jreferee (Talk) 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Added another source -- TimeOUT NY.. With 2 articles in NY Times, a profile in Time Out NY, and an appearance on NPR's Soundcheck, I think this is clearly notable. Will added some of the other sources that I found shortly... User:newbiez12345
  • Keep - I see multiple sources to the New York Times, and a free newsmagazine in New York. I'd have to say this is notable. --Haemo 07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice work adding more references. Seems definitely notable now Recurring dreams 09:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Met criteria for notability in advance of nomination, thanks to NYT and WNYC refs. Slightly tidied so that third party refs support TOC website comments. --DeLarge 10:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, passes WP:RS easily. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - if this group were from any city other than NYC, the "local" news coverage might not meet WP:N. --Evb-wiki 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there are many very good sources erasure would not make sense now yuckfoo 17:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norvan vogt[edit]

Norvan vogt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I recently speedy deleted a copy of this article as a non-notable biography but it has been recreated. So AfD is probably a good way to settle the question once and for all. This is a resume masquerading as an article. In fact it is quite similar to his online resume posted at [41]. The article does make an effort in terms of references but these are all coming from one human interest blurb in the Canberra Times and unreliable sources such as the subject's travel blog and various Internet forums. All in all, "Norvan vogt" registers under 70 unique Ghits [42] and looking through them, nothing but the article mentioned above has any hope of being used as a strong source. Pascal.Tesson 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Pascal.Tesson 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I added the speedy to the first and second. And I understand the change from speedy to AfD. Sadly, Norvan does not seem notable. If it is kept, it should be moved back to Norvan Vogt to re-capitalize his last name. --omtay38 05:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a resume masquerading as an article. The topic Norvan does not meet notability. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as not meeting the standard conditions for notability, though it was not a speedy. So this is the way to settle it, and then G4 will deal with it in the future.DGG (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is a CV which even if rewritten in encyclopedic style would fail notability. This is not a judgement on Norvan's community work which is worthy, just not notable. • nancy • 06:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CV- style - Well I think that the rewrite that Zulu4 did cuts away at the CV style argument as it now has a better narrative. re: Notable – if you have a look at the other people that are in the same organisations like the national youth roundtable they also have wiki pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iktimal_Hage-Ali so if they are notable then I would say this article is too. Also I think that because he has been selected as a lead Senate candidate that this is notable within its self. Delvian 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say, I hate to play cop here but I find it somewhat odd that Zulu4 (talk · contribs), Ando80 (talk · contribs) and yourself have all registered their accounts in the last 4 days and have all of their edits concentrated on this sole article. I have to assume that at the very least you are friends of Mr. Vogt in real-life and it would be nice of you to disclose any potential conflict of interest in this matter. Pascal.Tesson 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • -Sorry didn't know about the COI thing I'm new to this whole wiki thing. I'm not really a friend of Norvan's as i don't really mix with him socially i am 1200kms away. but i do know him and use to work with him. he was my team leader work and over a 12 month period really helped me sort my life out, got me my dream job so yes i guess you could sau that there was a COI. I don't think that it takes away from the issue though. Kate Lundy, Gareth Humphreys and Kerrie tucker have wiki pages so i can't see why Norvan can have one. i guess that Ando80 is Frank Anderson a guy that knows norvan from mexico he stated as such in the RIG discussion [1]apart from COI issues - does it mater that we know and like Norvan? it does not take away from the validity of the issue? besides i think that the interest in getting norvan up there was only sparked because of his 'call to arms' to save the Dems. [2] which is only the past week. Delvian 11:37, 15 August 2007
  • Comment - I was asked to look at this page to see what my opinion was, I don't have a stack of time at the moment, the most noteable thing I can see about this person is the fact he's an Australian Democrats candidate in the ACT at the coming election. Unfortunately candidates are not considered noteworthy enough until they become elected. If this is his biggest noteability to the wider community (and minor awards/achievements dont count unfortunately) then i'm afraid I lean toward delete. Timeshift 06:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chaser - T 03:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EgoZ[edit]

EgoZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Claims to be the subject of a half-hour special on a national TV station, which would satisfy criterion 12 of the music notability guidelines, but would be extremely difficult to verify. Prod was removed, so I'm going through the procedure for some other opinions. I remain neutral on this one. Nufy8 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - almost no Ghits [43], and many of those are irrelevant. However, this is an irregular genre of music, subject to a different set of rules at: WP:MUSIC, down at "performers outside mass media traditions" it may pass notability. Bearian 17:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - by now contains a most explicit reference to the TV interview, so passes WP:MUSIC. --Huon 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Huon. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Here is what I found. In January 1961, the Egoz, a ship carrying Jews from Morocco to Spain, sank. Twenty-three Jews perished. Their remains were brought to Israel with the approval of the king of Morocco in 1991, 30 years after their deaths. The event was made into the movie "Egoz". * Some Ashkenazic Jews avoid eating nuts on Rosh Hashana because the numerical value of the letters in the Hebrew word for nut, egoz (egoz is Hebrew for walnut), is close to that of the word for sin, chet. * Egoz also is an Israeli special forces unit operating against Hezbollah guerrillas in Southern Lebanon. * In any event, it's good to know that a Jewish named rock band is doing swell in Egypt. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per lack of reliable sources and low count of hits in the Google test, there is simply no evidence to prove they are in any way notable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. -- Kappa 07:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Google test is irrelevant for topics like this that have little English language coverage. Non-net sources are fine, especially in cases where they help avoid systematic bias. Eluchil404 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "[O]ne of the more well-known Egyptian rock bands" should have numerous verifiable references, English-language or not. This one apparently has none. Precious Roy 15:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the vast majority of the article is unreferenced and fails WP:V. Nothing in the way of RSs to stand up notability. TerriersFan 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Derrick[edit]

Mark Derrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable railroad hobbyist. I tagged it for improvement, but nothing has been done for months. Clarityfiend 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO. Agree that reads like a user page. Brusegadi 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:N. And, although it has some useful information on purchasing his games should anyone be interested, the ad may be better suited for Wikiforsaleia rather than for Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply not notable Recurring dreams 09:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since I know that I would consider a wargame designer with his credits to be notable. Weak because no claim has been made that his variations on the 18xx system have been particularly innovative, and I don't have any experience with the rail game genre to be sure who is notable within it. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seabright[edit]

Seabright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded this article a few days back, but the creator removed the tag. I guess that's a contested prod? In any case, "Seabright band -wikipedia " draws 70,000 hits, but none of the top ones have anything to do with this band. A search for "Seabright 'Justin Morales' -wikipedia" brings a single hit. The band's label yields 70-some hits, mostly MySpace pages and self-promo sites. The editor who removed the prod is User:Justinmorales, also the article's creator, which adds a WP:COI issues to the mix. Consequentially 05:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This page seems to fail the notability guidelines for WP:BAND as I also couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability on Google other than their blog. Sawblade05 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, no claim to meeting the requirements at WP:BAND. Nuttah68 06:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found to pass WP:BAND Corpx 06:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No WP:RS, fails to meet WP:BAND, and no assertion of WP:NOTE. Too late for speedy? --Evb-wiki 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to the show. Singularity 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alan Johnson[edit]

Michael Alan Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Zonday Tay 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cammarata[edit]

Michael Cammarata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Finishing incomplete nom; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (I was just about to save so here is my reasoning for the nom). From WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, wikipedia is not a place to honor the departed. Though his sacrifice is noble and he may be a hero for what he did, I don't believe there is anything in the article that makes him anymore notable than many of the others who died on September 11. Though it says he was an outstanding young athlete there is no proof or reference given in the article. I think that someone made this page as a memorial (it was started on September 11, 2006), and though admirable, is against policy and should be deleted. Phydend 03:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are a fair number of websites honoring his death... but none assert that he died any more notably than anybody else who died that day.Balloonman 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is fine for him to be included in a list of fire fighters who died in those circumstances. But, there seems no reason to have a separate page for each one.Anarchia 05:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, Wikipedia is not a memorial and fails WP:BIO. Nuttah68 06:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sad as the story is, delete, per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Corpx 06:51, 12 August 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. Singularity 00:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Hunt[edit]

Arlene Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't really assert any notability at all. Could be a speedy. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete meets WP:BIO how?Balloonman 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable third party sources have been added; article meets WP:BIO due to nontrivial coverage by a leading national newspaper and several secondary independent reviews of the subjects work. This strikes me as a singularly lazy nomination. Articles whose notability in question should be addressed using the notability tag - this article did not even have a single maintenance tag attached to it to notify editors of possible concerns. Afd is not a platform for addressing poorly sourced articles, but rather for discussing whether the subject would possibly deserve an article, regardless of how well written or sourced the article in its given state was.Skomorokh incite 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four books published in as many years by a reputable publisher is notable. Anarchia 05:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep, with the added ref. -- Depends on the books, which need to be demonstrated by substantial coverage in secondary sources such as reviews. ref 1 is the author's web site. Ref 2 is s very short notice in a review of multiple books, Ref. 3 is a "Lifestyle" interview with all data provided by the author. No substantial RSs. If there are no further reviews, notability can not be shown. Sourcability can be challenged, and we're challenging it here. DGG (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skomorokh. Mathmo Talk 07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has multiple independent sources. Did the nominator bother searching for any sources before nominating it? She's published four novels with a major British publisher. Nick mallory 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article initially did meet the criteria for speedy deletion as it didn't assert importance. There are probably thousands of notable subjects which are lost through A7, because inexperienced contributors add articles with no sources and no indication of importance, even though in some cases they actually are notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why not try and avoid this? Would a google search or a notability tag really have been too much to ask? Skomorokh incite 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do think a bit of looking for notability would be appropriate in this case, and my search (with some work to filter out articles about a missing teenager) found [44] and one through LexisNexis that I don't care to pay for. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please many different reliable sources are added now yuckfoo 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 22:03, 13 August 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. Singularity 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Kincaid[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Austin Kincaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted at AfD. DRV determined a relisting was in order, considering low attendance at that AfD, and the new contention that nominations for major awards constitute notability under WP:PORNBIO. Still, weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete don't see how she meets pornbioBalloonman 03:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has a long list of movies she has acted in. Appeared in at least 5 Pictorials about her. As stated above, been nominated for several major awards. Mathmo Talk 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with Mathmo. Brusegadi 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment which awards? Corpx 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep imdb results seem prolific and references provided for AVN nominations. Satisfies at least two criteria per WP:PORNBIO Tendancer 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think she satisfies two criteria in porbio --Art8641 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PORNBIO states "Performer has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards" which in turn listed AVN. Individual is listed at google cached AVN nominations list for "Best Actress" [45], there you go. Tendancer 04:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AVN award nominations and WP:PORNBIO Corpx 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn, unanimous keep so far) - Nabla 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Yugoslavia[edit]

Creation of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another redundant Yugoslavia article, containing information that either can already be found elsewhere or simply belongs elsewhere. The history of Yugoslavia is confusing enough as it is, we don't need to make more splinter articles and forks! K. Lásztocska 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my nom and per precedent of Borders before and after Yugoslavia.
  • Comment for those of us unfamiliar with where it should belong or where it can be found, can you elaborate on it? Your post above makes it sound as if there is a lot of history to this type of article that not everybody is familiar with.Balloonman 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move most material from Yugoslavia#Background and Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Formation to Creation of Yugoslavia. It's currently a poor article and is forkish but with the additional info could serve a useful purpose to pare details of the formation from the rather long aforementioned overview articles.—  AjaxSmack  04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and any other article concerning Yugoslavia's historic background into History of Yugoslavia then convert it into a redirect. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might have noticed "History of Yugoslavia" is a redirect to what is roughly a very large disambiguation article (Yugoslavia). All the more reason to assemble the content at a unique location. —  AjaxSmack  07:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too large to merge into History of Yugoslavia or Yugoslavia; this is about the post-WWI politics that led to grouping several different ethnic groups into an artifically creaed nation. A comparable problem would be in attempting to merge Articles of Confederation into an article about the history of the United States. Mandsford 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: keeping such poor quality text may discourage people from fixing the article. With de-facto informal stamp of approval a rewrite would require more boldness and give less satisfaction than creation of new text. Pavel Vozenilek 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So the answer is to simply delete the old text? I disagree. If the problem is that the English is not the author's first language, I think most Wikipedians welcome the opportunity to assist in fixing grammar, syntax, etc. From my point of view, the person who can write in his own language and in English is more bilingual than I am. Even at that, I don't think it needs a rewrite so much as some rewording. Mandsford 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the problems seem to be language quality and content forking, I have made copy and organizational edits and moved material from Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Please take into consideration with regards to this AfD. —  AjaxSmack  10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok, wow, that's a LOT better. I was thinking about this whole thing yesterday and realized that this article isn't really the problem, it's the fact that the Yugoslavia article itself is too big and not enough of a summary--all these other articles then end up looking like forks and splinters when they should be elaborations. So I hereby change my vote here to Keep. *looks sheepish*. K. Lásztocska 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is not other article which speak about that. I am OK with new version of article but my only comment is about part with name Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia. Version before that have been more clear of anarchy in State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs which has been important element in final decision about union. Rjecina 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Informative and well referenced.--Southern Texas 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, nominating this for deletion was obviously a bad idea! Can an admin please close this "debate"!? K. Lásztocska 15:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: if the article was once defective, it now is certainly not. Peterkingiron 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was defective when I nominated it, now it isn't, and now I look stupid for having nominated it at all. :) Can somebody please close this AfD?? K. Lásztocska 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy -- it was a legit nomination of a weak article before. And now it is the site of intense national sparring so maybe it would've been better off deleted. —  AjaxSmack  03:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Chaser - T 03:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of grunge supergroups[edit]

List of grunge supergroups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Twinkle didn't post it. I tried twice. Frustrating. Anyway, this list contains numerous semi-notable groups or sideprojects, but most of the notable info is already on the Supergroup page. As a reminder, only the list is up for deletion, not the group pages. J-stan TalkContribs 01:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the bands, or the genre. Audioslave, Mad season, Temple of the Dog, Velvet Revolver, and Army of Anyone are listed on both pages, and that's exactly half of the bands listed on the page in question. J-stan TalkContribs 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, there's half that isn't listed there. If they're notable enough for the general supergroup page, then list em there. If not, or if that page is getting too lengthy, then I don't see a problem with keeping this page. Tarc 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I guess everyone in the world but me knows that those are grunge groups so it doesn't need any explanation. Kappa 02:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? J-stan TalkContribs 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I'll leave to the grunge fans. Kappa 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Well OK. If for some reason I want to find grunge supergroups which I haven't heard of before, using the general supergroup page, I can use the simple method of clicking on every single supergroup and checking if the article says "grunge". That will only take about half an hour and I might find some other interesting bands in the process. Kappa 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your a "keep" vote, right? Just trying to make it easier on our mop-endowed amigos. J-stan TalkContribs 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've voted keep below. Actually I think you should be able to merge it if you are clever. Kappa 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not completely sold on the need for the list... but I can't say that it doesn't deserve one...Balloonman 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Balloonman. Mathmo Talk 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete over-extensive, window for nns. Bulldog123 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of sources that attest inclusion into this genre. As of now, it is WP:OR to categorize them like this. Corpx 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless Corpx can get Category:Grunge groups deleted on the basis that it's OR. Kappa 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the community seems to want listscruft, so let 'em eat cruft. Delete this, and you have to delete pretty much every list in wikipedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That !V seems to violate WP:POINT. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding. J-stan TalkContribs 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list is currently only about two-thirds grunge. They did pretty well on including only supergroups, though (I only see one NN individual or band on the list). I wouldn't call it OR, but it is susceptible for genre edit-warring. That's not an argument for deletion. -Freekee 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Singularity 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High school track and field in Kansas[edit]

High school track and field in Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I also think the claim that the content is public domain is dubious (see Talk:High school track and field in Kansas). Rick Block (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete if this were anything more than event/competition times/results I might state otherwise, but as is. Pure garbage.Balloonman 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, I've changed it from that... now it can grow to be something better. Mathmo Talk 03:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'd agree with deletion if the article was to always stay like it was. But with the wonderful power of editing I've significantly changed it. Is now only a sub-stub article, but can be expanded from this point. Also, as the article has now significantly changed the arguments for deletion no longer apply as such. Mathmo Talk 03:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is an empty article now, pending the removal of the results Corpx 06:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the original is nothing more than a results listing, the Mathmo edited version is an empty article consisting only of external links. The event is already mentioned at Kansas State High School Activities Association and I cannot see anything notable that requires this article. Nuttah68 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: history contains only copyvios and blank collections of links. CSD G12 and A3. David Mestel(Talk) 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how high school athletics is notable. Second, it is not a substub. It has only external links, which is even worse and qualifies for WP:CSD. Punkmorten 08:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While, I believe a record of national (or international) HS athletics may have merit, a few external links does not an article make.DDD DDD 09:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 16:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this please it is not an article really just some links yuckfoo 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete, I just put the links at Kansas State High School Activities Association, there is no more need for this article. Chris 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskel Spillman[edit]

Miskel Spillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Guy whose claim to fame is winning the "Anyone can host" contest of Saturday Night Live in 1977. Expired prod with rationale

nn personality, only claim to fame is winning SNL contest, which can be mentioned on an SNL page

which does make some sense. However, given the cult-like status of SNL it may be that more can be said about this guy. In any case my opinion is that this should be merged to some appropriate SNL history page. Pascal.Tesson 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak merge, seems to be notable for only one thing and could easily be merged into an appropriate SNL page. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's the only one to win? That makes him more notable than many articles out there.Balloonman 03:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per balloonman. Though I expect how long ago this was means it will be tricky finding sources, still that is never a reason for deletion the difficulty of sources. Mathmo Talk 03:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not as if I care deeply about the whole thing but these keeps have me scratching my head. What sort of hopes are we holding for this article? Currently it says "this grandmother got her 15 minutes of fame on November 19, 1977" and let's face it, this is all we will ever have. Why not merge it into a place that can put it in proper context? Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - This person only got media attention because of one incident, and I see no historic notability Corpx 06:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only one accomplishment? 15 minutes of fame don't guarantee notability, better delete the article since based on its nature it will be a eternal stub. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests. Otto4711 12:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Anyone who is familiar with SNL, or, for that matter, who has even READ the article, knows that Miskel Spillman was a grandmother, not some "guy". A lot of people know about her stint as a guest host on a series where being a guest host is a major accomplishment. Consider that every single one of the SNL guest hosts is a blue link. Mrs. Spillman is a part of EVERY book about the history of Saturday Night Live. However, most people, myself included, had no idea what ever happened to her. She had more than 15 minutes (more accurately, 90 minutes) of fame. Had she been a guest on, say, Thicke of the Night, it would be different, but SNL is a legend, and the Spillman story is a part of that legend. Mandsford 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why merging and redirecting to the list of hosts and guests, thus preserving her story, is the way to go. Yes, she is a part of every book on SNL. A part that occupies perhaps a page at most, often either as part of a list of the hosts or in a brief summary description of the contest and episode. The other hosts are blue links because they are independently notable as actors, musicians, politicians, etc. Otto4711 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counterpoint; Isn't "merging and redirecting", in this case, erasing the entire article in the same manner as "deleting"? I don't believe that the list of hosts and guests has any level of detail to it, beyond a sentence or two, and thus it would not serve the function of "preserving her story". Let me throw another argument to consider... there have been 624 live broadcasts of SNL in its first 32 seasons, and, literally, hundreds of guest hosts. Would it be consistent to have one red link among the hundreds of blue links, simply because the person did not achieve further notoriety on television? Using the same reasoning, one could argue that Ron Goldman, who was not independently notable before June 12, 1994, and who did nothing thereafter, does not merit an article of his own. Mrs. Spillman is, arguably, more notable than Ann Risley, whose name that would not be recognized by many who do recognize "Miskel Spillman", even though Ann Risley appeared on multiple episodes of SNL. Mandsford 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Goldman example was a response to the argument that other persons were independently notable for more than one thing, though you have parried it well and thrown me off balance. I'll fall back on the other point, which is that it would be inconsistent to have an article about all SNL hosts except for one. If notability isn't at issue (i.e., it doesn't matter that more people have heard of X than of Y and a person need not have a second reason for notability, then is there a different reason for deletion? I think I've accomplished my purpose, which is to lengthen the debate to the point that it's more likely to be noticed by passers by. I think the fact of being part of every book on SNL and achieving media coverage, even though not on the scale of Goldman, indicates that Mrs. Spillman is article-worthy. Mandsford 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mandsford. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. Sahasrahla 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well almost no one favors outright deletion. But the merge to List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests does seem to me like a more natural choice given the scarcity of information about Miskel Spillman. The dates of her birth and death are unreferenced and although that may be available, I'm quite certain we won't have much beyond that. The current article could easily be merged into the "remarks" column of the above mentioned list. Pascal.Tesson 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above arguments. --Orat Perman 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Doesn't really need their own page. Just won a contest and hosted a show, that's it. Not notable at all, and all the keep arguments are putrid. Just a piece of obscure trivia, and the list of SNL hosts is the perfect place to note that. Also, the PROD was kept for 5 days solid, FYI. Biggspowd 05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think a merge is a realistic solution, since the List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests article doesn't include biographical information. And why should it, when every single SNL host has his/her own article on Wikipedia? List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests already mentions that Spillman won the "Anyone Can Host" contest, but it really isn't the proper home for the most useful information in the Miskel Spillman article: the (admittedly very basic) biographical sketch, including her correct date of death (frequently misreported online, such as on IMDB), and the link to the 1989 interview. I realize I'm going to be accused of making the WP:USEFUL argument, but getting rid of her article would only make Wikipedia less useful. Kellysor 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — Kellysor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The People magazine "interview" isn't an interview. It is a long piece on the entire history of the show to date, and Spillman's "interview" is the last paragraph, consisting in its entirety of Miskel Spillman, 92, stands alone in the annals of SNL history. Beating out 150,000 other entrants in the 1977 Anyone Can Host essay contest, the New Orleans grandmother is the only nonceleb to ever host SNL. "I'm 80 years old, she wrote. "I need one more cheap thrill, since my doctor told me I only have another 25 years left." Twelve years after her cheap thrill (in which, among other things, she posed as Belushi's girlfriend) Spillman still tunes into the show. "I love the current cast, especially that fella in the dress," she says referring to Carvey's Church Lady. I take naps in the afternoon so that I can stay up. I'd love to host again," she adds. "I have 13 more years left, you know." Why the list article can't read something like "New Orleans grandmother Spillman beat out 150,000 entrants to win the show's first and only 'Anyone Can Host' contest" which covers the same territory as the separate article is mystifying to me. A lot of the arguments for keeping here seem based in "everyone else has an article" which is not a valid reason for her to have one. Otto4711 15:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per People, 1989. Rather than just mentioning her in their article, the magazine took the trouble to track her down twelve years after her appearance and get a quote from her. That's the fine line between fifteen minutes of fame and notability to me. I'd be against a merge into List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests, since that page doesn't have biographical info on any individual. Therefore keep to avoid losing information. --DeLarge 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep as per Delarge. Harlowraman 16:12, 19 August 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 Speedied Spam. the_undertow talk 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowyourmoney[edit]

Knowyourmoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Short article on a website. Has been tagged as orphan from Nov 2006, has no third-party sources (only a link to their website), and was created by a spam purpose account. No demonstration of notability, no WP:RS, no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 00:21, 12 August 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 snow delete and redirect all to Kingdom of Hawaii. I, for one, am very familiar with this subject. Singularity 04:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Nation, Hawaii nation, Nation of Hawaii, Nation of hawaii[edit]

Hawaii Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Politically-driven OR. Delete Owen× ☎ 00:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is your "proof" that is it "politically" driven? I have provided "facts" to support what is currently there and there is no statement that is politically motivated. -- PiPhD 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources that asset to the existence of this purported nation. Also, this article is full of self-reference, which is bad. --Haemo 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would you suggest that this entry be redirected to: Kingdom of Hawaii ? -- PiPhD 01:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I honestly don't know what is the appropriate course of action here, since I'm not familiar with the concept, or with the supposed differences between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Nation of Hawaii. --Haemo 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are funny. :o) -- PiPhD 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, This fails WP:NPOV, fails WP:RS - so much so that the original author cannot even find reliable sources himself, resorting to a plea for help in that regard. If it weren't for the fact that it's so clearly Puffery, such a please might be worth listening to - though it would belong on the talk page, not in the article itself.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 01:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who has the countdown for deletion? -- PiPhD 01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect all to Kingdom of Hawaii per all of the above. A snowball might not survive this 5-day discussion process. --Evb-wiki 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect and replace Hawaii Nation is the name of a website, not the name of an entity (at any point in Hawaii's history as an independent country). Treaty links should be redirected to List of bilateral treaties signed by the Kingdom of Hawaii, while Kingdom of Hawaii already gives a good detail on the history of the country before it came under Republican, and later U.S. rule. --Toussaint 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ten Pound Hammer. This OR at best. Edward321 02:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR/ADBalloonman 03:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Kingdom of Hawaii if appropriate. This article appears to be claiming flatly that Hawaii is not a state, which runs counter to common knowledge and any number of articles, such as Hawaii. Stating that certain groups believe that Hawaii's annexation was invalid is OK (as long as specific groups can be cited!), but that belongs elsewhere - Hawaiian sovereignty movement, for example. Beyond that, there's a serious lack of sources in this article (a single news source is pretty slim pickings), and a general lack of content to build on. Note that I removed a couple rather serious self-references, including a reference to this AfD. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kingdom of Hawaii. Mathmo Talk 03:50, 12 August 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. I agree with User:Xezbeth, this is a fairly clear consensus so I don't see why this was relisted in the first place. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by Christians[edit]

Historical persecution by Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Note: I have relisted this debate because the AFDs cited by the nominator had "delete" outcomes. It may be worth revisiting this particular article. --Coredesat 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination) PEAR (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editors present specific acts of violence/intolerance that are unified by nothing except the fact that the perpetrators were Christian; however, the reader is invited to infer a string of history through these unconnected events. This is perhaps most apparent in the section Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Colonialism which is a laundry list, nothing more. This is a terrible synthesis and, while the topic is no doubt valuable, the article is not. Bigdaddy1981 00:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR forbids "novel narratives." The Behnam 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how this amounts to a "novel narrative". Sure, it combines information from several sources, but it doesn't make any implications that aren't present in any of them. The basic facts are verifiable, and the article as a whole presents no thesis that isn't presented in at least one of its sources. JulesH 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:V, WP:RS, seems to avoid any WP:OR. Nom's reasons are fairly weak. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason for deletion given. // Liftarn
  • Keep. Perhaps a better name for it can be drummed up (I can't think of one) but I see no obvious reasons to delete this. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Defintitely needs clean-up and a little more sourcing, but it's not OR. Cap'n Walker 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic, needs work. --Hemlock Martinis 22:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The issues are best explained in their main article; not in an article about Christianity. Regarding this article, it assumes a modern definition of "persecution"(measured using the modern ideas of human rights etc etc) and applies it to the time where common understanding on the issue were different. This does not mean that those who were "persecuted" didn't feel any pain. In order to explain my point better, I'll give an example. We kill animals today, don't we? Let's assume that the science progresses and we can make artificial meat. After awhile people will become more sensitive with respect to animal rights and may look back at us and call us all "persecutors". Is that fair? No. Do animals suffer now by us? Yes... Today, Governments draw strict boundaries separating their countries from their neighbors. They discriminate between people living inside the border and those living outside but very close to the border in the sense of providing welfare and granting certain rights to their own citizens. But all these borders are artificial. Is this really "discrimination"? At least not today but later generation might add that to the wikipedia...I am not saying that such an article can not exist. Persecution has always been a reality and it has been naturally practiced at times by those who were in power. If Christians happened to be in the charge of an empire, wouldn't we expect persecutions? Of course we do. This should be addressed but should be addressed carefully. So, all in all I agree with The Behnam's comment above.--Aminz 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it uses a modern definition of persecution. Because that's what a modern reader will understand by the word. The point is, though, that this word is used by the relevant historical textbooks, etc., so why should the fact that these acts may not have been considered persecution at the time they were performed have any bearing at all on the issue? All we should be aiming to do here is to faithfully report what the best available modern sources say about the events, and if they call them persecution (which they do), that's fine by me. And by WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. JulesH 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are other problems as well. Who is a Christian? Many Christians may believe that those who did many of the persecutions were not in fact Christians. They thought they were Christians. How can the definition of Christian be made really "NPOV"? --Aminz 11:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By accurately and fairly summing up the opinions that have been published in reliable sources. Generally, such sources do not question that such people were Christians. JulesH 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment editors who can find no instances of OR, please read the section Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Colonialism carefully - it is quite stuffed with OR. Bigdaddy1981 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it? My understanding is that the ideas that Catholics persucted early Protestants, and that Christian colonials persecuted non-Christian natives are both well established theories well discussed in relevant literature. Certainly, a google book search finds large numbers of books that could be used to support such theories. JulesH 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of it is unsourced save the subsection "Massacres of Catholics in Ireland". It may not be incorrect OR, but its OR just the same. I don't deny that (as with the persecution by Muslims and persecution by Jews articles) the subject is one of encyclopedic value; I just think that all three of these articles are not valuable approximations of encyclopedia articles about the topics. Bigdaddy1981 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "unsourced" and "original research". Please read WP:ATT, which makes the distinction quite clearly. Being unsourced is a problem that can be fixed. Being original research cannot generally be fixed without deleting the content. JulesH 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh, so Jews and Moslems didn't persecute people, just Christians, huh? Well... that's different, then. Generally, I don't like group nominations, although in this case, it probably would have been better if we had had a "persecution package". I don't blame the nominator at all, since so many of us (myself included) grouse about mass nominations being unfair. Maybe the delete on all three of these should be revisited, since they're debated on different days. Mandsford 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per TenPoundHammer. Well, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! Edison 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is not more than a sum of its parts. Also delete all other "persecution by" articles. Beit Or 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's a fundamental part of history, even if it makes people squirm a little. Better to learn from the dark side of history than to ignore it. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is intrinsically OR to discuss persecution by Christians, because various people define persecution and Christian differently. Most of the events that entail "persecution by Christians" are mention in the appropriate articles elsewhere. Logophile 07:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a worthless POV laundry list which is essentially OR. Individual articles about specific incidents serve the purpose that this article supposedly does, without the OR and POV connection of the incidents as some sort of releated thread throughout history. Further, to underscore the POV nature of the article, much of the persecution was done by people who were nominally Christian for reasons unrelated, or largely unrelated, to their religion. The article creates the sometimes false impression that the persecution was done because they were Christian. Historical Persecution by Muslims and Historical Persecution by Jews should likewise be deleted for the same reasons. Mamalujo 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look at the footnotes on this article. It is sourced very largely with primary sources. The section on the United States is almost entirely OR. Its all citations to the Texas Legislature, and the North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennesee and Massachusetts constitutions. Oh yes, and there is an opinion piece on Beliefnet by a Wiccan. Mamalujo 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a very notable and encyclopedic topic. Seems odd to me that the nominator gives no reason why this should be deleted and simply listed it. Saying religious persecution is an original research topic that cannot be treated with any neutrality may be the most asinine idea I've ever heard, considering it wasn't too long ago that a couple thousand New Yorkers died as the direct result of people with expressly religious reasons. And that was certainly covered in reliable sources. Not to mention say, the Spanish Inquistion and The Crusades. Acknowledging that acts of violence have been committed in the name of almost every religion is not inherently POV, it's the plain truth as verified by hundreds of reliable, published sources. No doubt all articles of this nature need to be closely watched to prevent POV and OR, but an article on the self-declared persecution for religious reasons by Christians throughout history is not OR in itself. Once again, an article that direly needs cleanup is not the same as a being unencyclopedic. VanTucky (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worthless POV article. Who says who is Christian and who's not? --Raphael1 03:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The material is well sourced and encyclopedic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete - Articles that allege horrific things about a race or religious people are not encyclopaedic, and they all should be deleted. This one is no more worthy of deletion than any others alleging racial or religious bias. They all should be deleted. If the others remain, then this one should be kept too. Otherwise its demonstrating an unreasonable bias. - PS this one wasn't linked from the other 2 so I think some people missed it. 123.2.168.215 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. It doesn't make any sense to have this article while the two other articles are deleted. But maybe we can start over voting again (?) --Aminz 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again per WP:SYNTH - This is taking a bunch of facts (or allegations) and grouping them under a big umbrella of "persecution by Christians". None of these are directly related to each other. Corpx 06:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - The article might have some hope of making a good historical article if all the pov is cleaned since Christians as well as the mayority of religions have indeed been known to practice discrimination aganist members of other religions, or did everybody forgot about the crusades and the genocide by Christian Spaniards while invading (mostly Latin) America? - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per the similar articles "Historical persecution by X". It seems pretty clear from precedent that this should be deleted, not to mention OR and SYNTH issues. .V. [Talk|Email] 07:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per vantucky. Mathmo Talk 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly valid topic. I'm not understanding the relist, its a pretty clear consensus. —Xezbeth 11:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Singularity 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest living Mayor of San Francisco[edit]

Earliest living Mayor of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Oldest living Mayor of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic trivia — in the unlikely event that we actually needed these, they'd be perfectly fine as subsections of Mayor of San Francisco, but they're just not necessary as distinct articles. Previously prodded; tag was removed by creator with no comment or rationale provided. Delete, or merge if we must. Bearcat 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Interesting lists. However, I can't think of anyone who could use such information. I think if each article established actual use of such information by WP:RS, they would be keepers. Until then, delete. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteInclude information in Mayor of San Francisco. There seems no purpose having this as an encyclopedia article. I doubt that it is the kind of thing anyone would search for by this name. However, people might look for such information on a 'mayors' page. Anarchia 06:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no need to make copies of list of people by their age, unless age is an important factor as to the inclusion into the list Corpx 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is inane, useless, trivial.DDD DDD 09:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get the concept, as with Earliest living United States president, which is now Carter after Ford died in December (before that, it was Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Hoover, etc.) Because of the fascination that the American public has with "The Presidency", one can get away with such trivia (and that's really all it is) about American presidents. There isn't the same interest in mayors of San Francisco, California. Mandsford 14:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic list. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The information is in any case redundant to Living Mayors of San Francisco. --Tikiwont 08:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need that list either? Bearcat 17:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V, no sources whatsoever. Sandstein 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rally Fries[edit]

Rally Fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable month old "tradition". Wikipedia is not a repoisitory of television show gimmicks. Nuttah68 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless for some reason there happens to be massive news coverage of said "tradition". David Mestel(Talk) 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability and even then, the scope of notability is limited to a small region Corpx 06:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, this tradition is way too new. JIP | Talk 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks apparent notability. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On the same lines as Rally Monkey. May not be a "Tradition" but has appeared nationally in every ballpark the Mariners have played in. Wikipedia is a good place for people to learn about things they see in the real world and if people see signs, they can come here to learn about them. May need to be rewritten to remove reference to "tradition" and change to "Fan interaction". See this published article in the Seattle Post-Intellegencer on 8/13/2007 where it is referred to as a "Tradition".[46]--Brownnet 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every team has its own set of traditions and I dont think we should be having articles about each of them either Corpx 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's no reason this article should be deleted. If you operate under the policy that it's only known in a specific region and is too recent, then there are tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that would fall under the same guidelines and must also be deleted. The "Rally Fries" are becoming a legitimate -if still somewhat localized - pop-culture entity. I'm not a Mariners fan, but I do have DirecTV's Extra Innings package, and whenever I switch to a Mariners games - even road games - I hear it mentioned. There's no reason to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.214.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is meant to bring together free information. This is not the same as a "TV Gimmick" because it has nothing to do with television viewership, but is meant more for the enjoyment of the Seattle Mariners baseball game.24.16.49.190 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just an in-game gimmick, comparable to the hovercraft 'race' during Mariners games, and has only been around for a few months. This is very different from the Rally Monkey, which is not only a mascot but took five years after consistent appearances at games to be noteworthy enough to be included here. --Mr. Vernon 04:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that it would be ridiculous to delete this article on the grounds that it is not notable enough. If one of the thousands of people watching these games on TV wants to know what the rally fries signs are all about, they should be able to find out from Wikipedia. Just like any other entry on some random D-list actor or a japanese cartoon that was on for a week a decade ago, or whatever. When it gains more notoriety, then there will be more to add. Defenitely keep this article Scitzengiggle 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • — Does that really make his opinion less credible? He makes a good point. I'm not going to judge something because they're new. You didn't start out with a ton of contributions. --ErikG803 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The rally monkey is notable because it did get some national TV airtime and media attention, to the chagrin of all baseball fans outside of orange county. There's no guarantee this is will be notable in the future, and if it does, then it's a piece of cake to bring it back. hateless 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Seattle Mariners if we must keep at all. Fan "traditions" related to singe teams can readily be filed there. Mangoe 20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I tried looking up rally fries a number of times before just hearing Sims and Blowers mention there was a Wiki article on it. I google'd rally fries and low and behold, here it is. I find none of the above reasons valid for removing this. It provides information on the history, though brief, of something a lot of Seattlites and others around the nation are curious about. If you don't like it up here, don't read it. It's really not that big of a deal.
  • Keep - This page was very helpful to those who were curious about the origin of this tradition, and provides solid information on a new trend in Seattle. If a page is helpful at all, chances are it's a keeper. --ErikG803 05:43, 18 August 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. There was a clear consensus that the article should be kept. Those names that do not have their own articles need separate line by line citations and I have marked them accordingly. This is, however, a post-AfD editorial action. TerriersFan 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajputs[edit]

Appears to be yet another virtually unsourced and verifiable caste list. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. This is practically the same as List of Nairs, which was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nairs. Coredesat 08:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, an unsalvageable mess like the others. Punkmorten 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have List of Poles and List of Muslims, why not Rajputs? User:Abdullah_mk
    • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 20:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't this nomination based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Kappa 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to know if Coredesat would actually like to delete list of Poles, or if not, how this list is different from that one. Kappa 01:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That list is also problematic in that it would be far better served by a category, but that isn't the question for this AFD. It will need to be nominated separately. --Coredesat 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • When are you planning to do that? Kappa 08:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems a harmless list to me. Su8ch lists are useful as a measn of identifying articles that should be written, even though it is a list with names (rahter than red links). Peterkingiron 23:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:HARMLESS. As you point out, the list doesn't have red links, so it's not useful for identifying articles that should be written. Besides, we have Wikipedia:Requested articles for that purpose. utcursch | talk 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Strong keep with prominent personalities.--James smith2 12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a harmless list. Prominent personalities on whom articles should be written, figure as red links, which is not a problem. Wikipedia is always growing, there are infinite additions to be made to the "most comprehensive" encyclopaedia. --AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 07:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Utcursch said, see WP:HARMLESS. The question is what value does this list have, per WP:LIST? Actually there aren't any red links, but I guess the unlinked names are still useful for development, they tell peolple who they should be writing about and can be quickly turned into links after the article is created. Kappa 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what are you actually trying to say. Please be more clear. Is it a good idea or bad?--AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 10:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is informative. I see no reason for the deletion.Kumarrao 13:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "unsourced" isn't a good rationale for deleting a list of mostly blue links. I don't believe Rajput is an indiscriminate criterion for sorting, that it's impossible to define someone as a "Rajput" or that no-one would care, I think the nomination should have made that case if that's supposed to be a reason for deletion. Per WP:LIST it fulfils the functions of information, being well annotated, as well as navigation. Kappa 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Started cleaning up the article) On the other hand, it still needs a lot of cleanup... probably everything outside the "historical" section will need to be rebuilt point by point. Kappa 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Clayton[edit]

Christopher Clayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

autobiographical article (created by User:Christoph.clayton) with questionable claim to notability. (NOTE: there is a redirect Flayz, if the article is deleted this should be as well) Jon513 11:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 20 hits for DJ Flayz on Yahoo. And a grand total of zero hits for "Christopher Clayton DJ Flayz." Well wide of the notability mark. Blueboy96 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:BIO, provides no WP:RS. Also, completely WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 16:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article for non notability and clean up the redirect. --Stormbay 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotion, not notable. - TexMurphy 16:53, 13 August 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. Eluchil404 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Explorer[edit]

Grammar Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this notable? Computerjoe's talk 18:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This program has received plenty of attention from the EU, as well as 3 other listed sources to boot. This article is extremely notable, even if you have never heard of it. Panoptical 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks to be very notable to me and also no real rationale provided by nom for deletion and almost intended to speedy close the discussion right away (but will wait). The notability tag should have been added in the article instead of the Afd tag.--JForget 01:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability tag only waitlists the article for "sorting," which would only have someone send the article to AfD later, possibly months later, or to have someone remove the tag later. Just tagging it with notability is a bad idea when notability could be decided now. (By the way, my vote still stands as "keep"). Panoptical 01:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "TIG Discussion "What makes a good Social Entrepreneur?"". Retrieved 2007-08-09.
  2. ^ Help Norvan and Save the Democrats - TONIGHT! | The RiotACT
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_12&oldid=1116877791"