Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13
March 15 >

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 deleted by User:Golbez with no deletion reason given. --ais523 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kyle jack

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

The article in question is nonsense, along with copyrighted material from the maddox website Parsecboy 16:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Bucketsofg 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Hollick

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

The prod was contested several weeks ago with the comment "I disagree". So I'm bringing it here. I believe the subject doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and lacks sufficient reliable sources for attribution. Most of the sources that I found via Google or are provided in the article are just a list of books. The single substantial source was this piece from a (minor?) historical fiction society detailing a visit with Ms. Hollick.

Most of her books' articles were prodded or speedily deleted as spam. Also nominating:

*Delete no sources, couldn't find any notability. Alex43223 T | C | E 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As TBC notes, things look self published. I can't find much in the way of reviews (and no reviews from publications of any type)Given the information below, I change to Keep. My bad. --Hobit 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable author. Due to the new sources and vote changes that borders WP:SNOW, I think we should keep and rewrite it instead. Wooyi 01:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She is NOT entirely self published. It took a little digging, but "Arrow/Childrens" is an imprint of RandomHouse in the UK, and according to this site that is who published her books Kingmaking, Harold the King, Pendragon's Banner and Shadow of the King. Her book "Come and Tell Me" was published by HarperCollins. I assume her books went out of print and that she started reissuing them herself, which shouldn't sway us one way or the other, frankly. Worthy authors will do the same thing. At this point I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete. I think that depends on some kind of independent recognition of her talent, doesn't it? At least some book reviews, I suppose. Noroton 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CHANGE TO KEEP (for reasons, see my comments below)Delete because I can't find book reviews that I can identify as from sources other than blogs, or other coverage besides the one TBC found. I did find this item in Rare Book Review but it's extremely short, not a full article. I'd change my mind if someone could point me to at least a couple of full-fledged articles about her somewhere, which I think would satisfy WP notability. Noroton 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up After being contacted to review my delete vote since the introduction of some sources, I still think this is a valiant effort towards self-publicity. I affirm my vote. /Blaxthos 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Self-publicity is something a little cleanup can handle. The article is short enough that a full re-write would be simple. In particular, the quotes from reviews need to be removed for copyright and WP:NPOV purposes- it's kind of silly to base critical reception on a quote which the author decides to present on her website. It'd be much easier to have access to the full reviews. --Wafulz 22:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to KeepI too am chaging my vote to keep, now refs have been added it meets WP:V and I think it gets a pass on WP:BIO.Tellyaddict 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above reason by Telly Bmg916 Speak to Me 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to KEEP, has been re-written and sourced well. Could use some more work, but certainly no longer warrants deletion. Bmg916 Speak to Me 23:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. I am Helen Hollick. I am a respected and well known author of mainstream historical fiction. I do not know how to use this site, I trust I have not made any errors with this insertion. Until today I was unaware I had an entry here.

BookForce UK is my printer, I am published, now, by Discovered Diamonds, which is the new, small independent mainstream branch of BookForce. You are confusing self publish with vanity publish. I have a full mainstream contract with this company. ONLY my latest novel "Sea Witch" is "technically" self published, my Arthurian Trilogy and Harold the King are re-published editions of out of print books published previously by William Heineman. I trust you are not going to penalise respected authors who wish to keep their books in print and who have no choice but to "self publish" when their mainstream books fall out of print! We do have a living to make, and our back lists are very important.

My novel A Hollow Crown remains in print with William Heineman. My children's personal safety book Come and Tell Me is published by Happy Cat Books. This book was the official Home Office safety Book for ten years.

I am a member of the Society of Authors. I am co-script writer for a pre-production movie "1066"

You will find plenty of up to date information about myself at www.helenhollick.net

I am about to go on my second lecture tour in the Netherlands, (subject, Harold the King) I have been guest speaker on several occasions for the Historical Novel Society. I have written several articles for various magazines - I refer you to my articles etc on my web site.

The Historical Novel Society is an international highly acclaimed society. Your information regarding my books, I am afraid, is inaccurate and out of date.

a selection of reviews from my initial publication with William Heineman:

"A wonderful book...breathes new life into an ancient legend" Best selling Historical fiction author Sharon Penman

Hollick's interpretation is bold, affecting and well worth fighting to defend." Publishers Weekly, November 11 1996

"Helen Hollick joins the ranks of Rosemary Sutcliff, Mary Stewart and Marion Bradley with this splendid novel" Pendragon Magazine

"Uniquely compelling...bound to have a resounding and lasting impact on Arthurian fiction" Books Magazine

"Weaves together fact, legend and inspired imagination to create a world so real we can breathe the smoke of its fires and revel into Romano-British lust for life, love and honour" Historical Novels Review


"A uniquely compelling novel which is bound to have a resounding and lasting impact on Arthurian fiction." Books

"An epic tale... Helen Hollick has done her homework meticulously and her story gleams with convincing Dark Age detail." Ms. London


Whether the events described actually happened this way is unimportant, that the reader feels instinctively that they could have happened this way is the sign of a superior novel. This is a fabulous read and one to be recommended unreservedly - even to committed "Williamites". If only all historical fiction could be this good." Sara Wilson, Historical Novel Society, 2001.

"Local author Helen Hollick has achieved a miracle by making this reviewer sit still and silent for a whole weekend, stirring only to eat toast whilst devouring Helen's gripping book. And it's a damn big one at that, sweeping from England to France, from Wessex to Normandy, following the fortunes of Harold Godwine, Earl of Wessex and later King of England, and William, Duke of Normandy. Treachery, arrogance, lies and weakness contrast with courage, honesty, strength and of course, plenty of love interest to make you weep. Illegitimacy, fallen kings, plenty of hunting scenes and some great sea journeys and bloody battles; we follow the fortunes of the cast from 1044 right up to the Battle of Hastings itself, which is brilliantly recreated.

Helen also provides at the end an explanation for some of her plot "changes" - for example, her Harold is not killed by the arrow in the eye at all, but is beheaded - on the grounds that as most of the information concerning the battle and William's claim to the English throne comes from Norman sources its veracity is questionable. Compelling stuff." SW Magazine, March 2001


"Countdown to conquest. Today, one could be forgiven for thinking that Tony Blair's Labour government had invented spindoctoring. In her epic story, retelling the tide of events that led to the Norman Conquest, Helen Hollick shows us the truth. England 1044. The Godwine family is one of the most powerful families in England. As Earl Godwine's six sons start to reach maturity, so they are rewarded with power and influence. Harold Godwine, skilled at both the machinations of court and at fighting, has inherited all his father's diplomatic skills - but none of his lust for battle. In France, William, bastard son of a duke, is brought up at the court, but trained to be a soldier. Attractive and arrogant, he is an exciting leader, inspiring his men to ever greater victories.

Though still precociously young, his fame begins to spread. When events in England take a dramatic and bloody turn, the Godwines are forced into exile. They must fight their way back into favour, and a power struggle ensues, which will eventually make Harold king. But William has already seen the weakness which exists in England ... the Battle of Hastings is the terrible and bloody result.

Following the battle, William's spindoctors justify the atrocities that have taken place and his claim to the throne. They advise him to build Battle Abbey as a penance, and ensure that all information comes from Norman sources. In this masterly and colourful recreation, Helen Hollick weaves together the history of a powerful family of noblemen, with that of the aggressive bastard of Normandy - culminating in the fierce and tragic battle which changed the course of England's history." Bolton Evening News, 21 Oct 2000.

"This re-telling of the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings in 1066 through the eyes of the men and women involved mixes together historical fact with plenty of personality. Hollick, whose previous novels were about Arthurian Britain, juxtaposes the stories of Harold and William as events conspire to produce the Norman Conquest.

What is most inspiring about Hollick is that she can produce such a mammoth book from a household where she is the only reader - both her husband and daughter suffering from severe dyslexia." Cliff Moore, Dorset Evening Echo - Weymouth - 28 Oct 2000


I will be happy to provide you with any other information you require

I can be contacated via my website

www.helenhollick.net

Helen Hollick— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.188.151 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Hm, I'm willing to give it you the benefit of the doubt and I'll probably end up withdrawing the suggestion to delete once I have time to give this a more in-depth look. The articles will have to be rewritten substantially for Wikipedia guidelines though. --Wafulz 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just sent an email to Helen Hollick through www.helenhollick.net. A copy of the email is at my talk page here. If she can send me the information we can use to establish notability, I will be happy to add it to the story. I've also changed my vote to "Keep", basically on faith that we can get the right confirmation in the article (presumably from articles not on the Internet). I think if we do this that it would satisfy editors here, and I hope any administrator would extend this debate if need be, for a few days if that's what it takes to get it done. Noroton 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Daniel Bryant 08:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Shooting

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

Subject has not been shown to meet notability criteria. No reliable sources have been provided after nearly a month from being tagged. The only verifiable information is a rumor that has been spread mostly on gaming blogs and fansites. Most of the content in the article constitues original research, which fails Wikipedia:Attribution. Many web search results for "Wii Shooting" refer to the Duck Hunt-style shooting demo at E3 that was incorporated into Wii Play, and not a separate game. Dancter 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:12Z

Online dating service clichés

[edit]
Online dating service clichés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research with no sources or references to verify any of the claims made in the article. The article also has numerous POV issues, as it doesn't explain how many times a line or photo has to be used in order for it to be considered a "cliché". TBCΦtalk? 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If you actually read the source, you'll realize that only 4 clichés are listed on that website, and there are 18 in the article. Where did all the others come from? The WP article is entirely original research, not even properly deriving the verifiable information from the single (and insufficient) source it provides. ◄Zahakiel► 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 John Reaves (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball nicknames, List of sportspeople by nickname, List of hockey nicknames. List of basketball nicknames, List of baseball nicknames

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

Original research with no references or citations to verify any of the nicknames mentioned in the list. Also, it doesn't clarify how often a nickname has to be used in order for it to be considered an official nickname. TBCΦtalk? 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR, NN, and really just plain NOT belonging here. Alex43223 T | C | E 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge verified nicknames into the respective team articles, if not already done so. UnfriendlyFire 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not inherently original research, I've certainly seen/read a lot of these nicknames used in legitimate publications. There's no requirement that every claim on Wikipedia be backed up with an inline citation or we delete the article... some of these are just obvious, like "The Tribe" for Cleveland Indians "The Bronx Bombers" for the Yankees. Useful and interesting lists for sports fans. If some of the nicknames are original research, that's a reason to improve the articles, not delete them. --W.marsh 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is a requirement on Wikipedia for citations. See WP:ATT. Also, I strongly disagree that "sports fans might like it" is a reason for keeping these articles.--TBCΦtalk? 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not a requirement that every line in an article have an inline citation this very minute. Never has been, never will be. It needs to be reasonably shown that sources do exist, that's the thing. If you think the Cleveland Indians have never been called "The Tribe" in print, for example, you obviously know very little about baseball [1] --W.marsh 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a requirement for citations if the content might be considered dubious. Regardless, the article also has numerous POV issues, as it doesn't clarify how much a nickname has to be used in order for its inclusion into the list.--TBCΦtalk? 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Luckily, there's an easy solution for that, we can just say "notable nicknames" and then follow the guidelines per WP:NOTABLE on any that are controversial. That takes care of any theoretical POV issues. --JayHenry 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The List of baseball nicknames, much of it seems to fail WP:ATT and WP:MADEUP. "The Tribe" sure, but stuff like "Sox Suxs" "Asstros" "Pond Scum" "Filthy Rich Dankees"? Do you think this stuff would appear in a reputable source? Neutral on the others, if they could have references added, they could be pretty good articles Citicat 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So remove the ones that are inaccurate? What is it with people wanting to delete an entire list lately just because a few items are incorrect... it's not much different than deleting articles because a few claims have {{fact}} tags next to them. --W.marsh 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think there would be enough left over to make a worthwhile article. While might be a good article would be a list of major league baseball franchises, that could list prior team names and cities as well as nicknames. Citicat 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kntrabssi 01:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah that could be used as justification to delete absolutely anything though... Bill Clinton, Outer space, Russia... those are pretty random topics! We can't collect them indiscriminately, can we? Is there any specific problem with this information other than the fact that you apparently don't like it? --W.marsh 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:AFD-IS-NOT_WP:CLEANUP. Remove the inaccurate or controversial names; build a better encyclopedia instead of eradicating the less-than-perfect articles. - Neier 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The article also has numerous POV issues, not just clean up ones. For example, how many times does a nickname have to be used in order for it to be considered an official nickname? Five times? A hundred? A thousand? --TBCΦtalk? 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • POV issues aern't a reason to delete, either. If you can turn on the radio/TV coverage of a baseball game and the announcers are using the nicknames without need for explanation (Big Red Machine, Tribe, Bronx Bombers, etc.) that's a pretty established nickname. There's no reason to suspect the article couldn't cover such information reliably. --W.marsh 03:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Though I admit that not all POV issues are a reason to delete, inherently POV issues—such as in this case—are. Also, the article doesn't establish how many times must a nickname be used by TV/radio announcers in order for it to be considered an official nickname. After all, there are countless people in mainstream media who have made up neologisms to describe teams, and Wikipedia is certaintly not the place to indiscriminately record all of them. --TBCΦtalk? 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just talking about turning on a random radio/tv broadcast. There are certain nicknames recognizable to baseball fans. Maybe this is something you actually have to follow sports to understand, I dunno. But there's a difference between established nicknames and the silly stuff sports columnists make up as filler and is forgotten quickly. It's not really an inherent POV issue, it just involves needing to improve the article. Everything you've said boils down to a need to improve the article, not a reason to delete it. --W.marsh 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But the thing is, since it's entirely subjective, there's no way for us to determine how popular a neologism needs to be in order for it to be considered an actual nickname instead of, as you put it, "silly stuff sports columnists make up". As such, by all means these lists are inherently POV.--TBCΦtalk? 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to how many times something has to be used. It has to be used by multiple, verifible, reliable sources. If that critereon can be met for some of this set, I see no reason to delete this, only to clean it up. Wintermut3 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was unclear. Having an article of a list of nicknames is unencyclopaedic and trivial. Incorporating those nicknames into articles is useful (when referenced) -- we just don't need a indiscriminant and unverified list. /Blaxthos 18:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As seen below, parts of the lists are already verified. As for indiscriminant, is there some other way that you would classify or list baseball teams besides the 32 MLB teams which would make it more discriminant? It seems that indiscriminant is too often used as anything that I think is useless in AFD discussions. Neier 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is failing WP:NOT#IINFO as its just totally irrelevant information.Tellyaddict 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's very relevant information. Sports journalists constantly refer to teams and players by their nicknames. Also, for people who keep saying "indiscriminate" I gently encourage you to actually look up the meaning of the word "indiscriminate" in a dictionary. These lists are not it. These lists pass WP:LIST, for 1) information and 2) navigation. The lists are easily verifiable and also notable as these nicknames are in constant use in sports journalism. If you want to redefine Wikipedia's policy on lists, AFD is not the place for it. --JayHenry 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These articles are a lyrics database? They're travel guides? That's the only kind of things the page you've mentioned says are not to be included... and the articles in question clearly aren't any of those 8 things. People should really read these things before citing them. --W.marsh 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been going through the baseball article and adding references. There are about 20 now. I have to get back to real life, but I want to say, these nicknames are incredibly common. It's almost hard to find references because, for example, "Los Angeles" "Halos" returns over 1,000,000 hits on google, almost all of which are about the baseball team. Some of these nicknames even have books written about them -- about the actual nickname. There's an entire book about why the Dodgers are called the Boys of Summer. Also, I'm finding tons of non-trivial references such as "ESPN's List of Best Baseball Nicknames of All Time." As I do further research in this topic -- I'm not even interested in sports -- it's instantly obvious that sports nicknames are an integral part of sports culture and I'm changing my original vote to strong keep, and if not for the handful of delete votes, I'd change to speedy. These are blatantly valid lists. --JayHenry 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Daniel Bryant 08:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who play characters with the same names

[edit]
List of actors who play characters with the same names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a mixture of;

  • characters who are fictionalized/comedy versions of the actors playing them (Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc)
  • characters who are clearly named after the star of the show (Cybil, Roseanne, etc), which is a long-running tradition in sitcoms
  • characters who coincidentally happen to have the same first name (or last name... or middle name) as the actor playing them (Jack Nicholson in The Shining, etc)
  • characters' names that sound a little bit like the actors who are playing them, if you are hard of hearing, (Jackson Stewart played by Jason Earles, Jenna Rink played by Jennifer Garner, etc)

Mildly interesting trivia, but no real connection between all the items on this list, and no encyclopedic value. Saikokira 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Hockey League

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

Utterly non-notable simulated hockey league. Also, take note of abusive nature of page's creator. Skudrafan1 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 a mess resulting in no consensus. Individual nominations might be better, potential merges or redirecting is left to editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

[edit]
List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command was nominated for deletion but received no attention other than a suggestion to merge into this article. As I don't see how either list is encyclopaedic I'm relisting and expanding the nomination to include this list as well. Delete. Verification with reference to reliable sources is non-negotiable regardless of opinion here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

to which the above seems to apply equally. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination for List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command

[edit]

Non-notable stub as it is now, replicates only some of the information available at List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command Buckshot06 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Continued nomination below

[edit]
Please let me add some context to this set of pages. Some should not be deleted, as they are subpages of Strategic Air Command wings, which user:R. E. Mixer spent a great deal of time and effort on (he formerly served with SAC and has written books on the subject) while others are mistaken repeat pages and can be safely culled. List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigneed to Strategic Air Command, List of USAF Strategic Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command, and List of USAF Air Refueling Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command can all be safely deleted, as they replicate single portions of List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, which is notable itself. List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command and List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command can also both be deleted, because they deal with a single year`s history where the 321st Strategic Missile Wing was redesignated the 321st Missile Wing in 1990-91, but the main page for intercontinental missile (ICBM) wings, the List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command should not be deleted as it deals with all these organisations` history for nearly fifty years.

Buckshot06 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the verification for these articles, even before we consider any of that? --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Mixer served inside this organisation, and wrote three books on it - see the bibliography on Strategic Air Command of about six months ago under M. On the web it is not complete, but do a google search for USAF lineage and you will get official sites replicating most of this. I am remote from my primary/secondary sources, but Air Force magazine, the magazine of the Air Force Association, does a yearly issue with the entire wiring diagram for the USAF. I've seen numerous 1990s (and earlier copies), mainly in New Zealand, but it will be able to be accessed elsewhere. Finally if you want a web general background look at the USAF organisation page at globalsecurity.org and at the Federation of American Scientists, FAS. Buckshot06 16:12, 10 March 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 03:06, 9 March 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 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • questions Following Buckshot06's comments: Does this have to be a (big, confusing) AfD? Could not someone BE BOLD and aggregate the information in a minimal number of pages and turn the others into redirects? If that works to the satisfaction of Buckshot06 & R. E. Mixer, then is there a problem? Cannot R. E. Mixer's books serve as reliable sources? Pete.Hurd 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy close as malformed, confusing AFD. Obviously, with three listings having now occured and few/any comments (which, I assume, is due to it's complexity), this needs to be represented in an understandable form. /Blaxthos 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am proceeding in line with user Pete Hurd's suggestions. Buckshot06 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:17Z

Sexile

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

I'm not sure if this warrants more than a wiktionary redirect Tejastheory 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at that source as well, although it's not exactly an authoritative source: just a 'sex columnist' student writing on the subject. Tejastheory 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well-taken. While the term is clearly widely used and not all that new, no academic I can find has bothered to write about it yet... Kevinsam 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports clichés

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

Original research with no sources or references to verify any of the claims made in the article. The article also has numerous POV issues, as it doesn't explain how many times a phrase has to be used in a sport in order for it to be considered a "cliché". TBCΦtalk? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Delete No inclusion criteria, no sources, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an article can be fixed, then AfD is not the route to go. See WP:Deletion policy, where it says: Problem with page ... [Item:] Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations) I see this under "Solution:" Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. A list of sports cliches can be put together without being WP:OR as long as sources are cited saying "such and such is a sports cliche" and the citation could be disputed with a simple Google search or Google News search showing that the cliche isn't repeated as much as one would think a sports cliche would be. Inclusion criteria is simple: Is it a cliche used in sports topics? Yes or no, in or out. I don't know what is meant by POV in a list like this. Noroton 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (added to my comment Noroton 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • The article doesn't only have cleanup issues, but POV issues as well. Determining which phrases are cliches is entirely subjective. After all, how many times must a phrase be used in order for it to be considered a "cliche"? Five times? One hundred times? One thousand times?--TBCΦtalk? 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TBC, you're not getting what I'm saying: those ghits I link to in my comment below are what someone identified as sports cliches. Get a respectable source, cite the respectable source, build your list The Wikipedia Way. I just went down that link a little bit and found "Best Sports Cliches Ever! (Paperback) by Don R. Powell" over at Amazon.com. It's got blurbs from Sports Illustrated and ESPN Magazine. If you disagree with what Mr. Donald Rasputinovich Powell or some other respectable source has to say, the burden's on you to prove him wrong, it seems to me. That's where a small number of Google hits may help, although no, I don't know how small. Anyway, you don't really have to decide, you just have to cite respectable sources.Noroton 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I completely reworked this page. Every cliche has a ref, and the page has multiple refs, so notability for each cliche, and the page itself is established. The OR is removed, and as for how many times makes a cliche, that's up to the reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:18Z

List of scream queens

[edit]
List of scream queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Scream Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Inherently POV/original research. Introduction states a scream queen is "an actress who has become closely associated with horror films." "Closely associated" in whose opinion? The editors who added the actresses names to this list? The general public? And exactly how many horror films does an actress have to appear in before she is closely associated with them?

Apparently Paris Hilton, Julianne Moore,Katie Rosales and Joan Collins are all "closely associated with horror films." Really?! That just shows how this list will always suffer from POV issues. Just because Scream queen is a notable topic does not necessarily mean that a list of scream queens should also exist. Saikokira 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm changing to delete. After I wrote the comment above, which I still think is correct in general, I looked at the history of the article: Started 13 December 2005, poor-citation tag slapped on since 26 February 2006, number of citations made since then, ZERO. Attempting to get the contributing editors to cite sources has failed, and nominating for deletion is the proper next step. If the editors who have been adding to the list ever since February of '06 can't get their act together enough to find the sources, then it's time to light a fire under them or throw their article onto the trash heap. No sources, no article. Noroton 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fantastic art. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:19Z

Fantasy painting

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

This page lacks substantive information. It appears to be some unreferenced rambles on the topic. And we already have Fantastic art. Goldfritha 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:21Z

Medical slang

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

WP:NOT#DICT Kntrabssi 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep, with complete rewrite. Liking the work of this so far, but every jargon word should have a reference to accompany it. Looks good guys! Kntrabssi 02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete change to STRONG KEEP (for reason, see comment below Uncle G's comment below) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Noroton 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons mentioned above. Besides, article has no sources. --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete sources/WP:NOT /Blaxthos 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. Real96 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep, but rewrite There are sources, for sure, see [5] for example. I'm sure there are others. But my vote is based on the fact that WP is not a dictionary. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update upon rethinking. The phenomenon of Medical slang is real. WP having an article about it, maybe citing an example or two, but more discussing it's existence, how it is viewed by the medical profession, etc., could be notable and appropriate for WP. If the long lists were taken out, and some references added, this could be a good article. So keep, based on just removing the lists. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current version of this article is a list of swear-words. Unreferenced on top of that. The fact that professional slang per se exists should be discussed in slang. So maybe merge the descriptive part into slang. If the lists are kept, I think every single expression should be referenced and it should be indicated what country it is used in.--DorisH 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of that is solvable by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, and does not require an administrator to use any administrator tools. Editors should have the boldness to excise unverifiable dictionaries of slang and write proper articles themselves. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G 12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the citation for Fox et al. to this article back in September 2006. There is an encyclopaedia article to be had on this subject, but the actual encyclopaedia content has been overshadowed by the collection of original research, the vast dictionary of slang, that the article itself made excuses for not complying with our Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary content policies. As demonstrated, fixing the problems with this article requires nothing more than the simple use of ordinary editing tools by ordinary editors to hold it to our content policies. Sources on the subject exist. AFD is not cleanup. Keep. Uncle G 12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Uncle G, you changed my vote. This is exactly what we should be doing with articles, preferrably before they're put up for AfD nomination, but if necessary, after. Noroton 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Yan

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

Vanity page, not noteable, not written in a neutral point of view, references minor and rubbish, content is nonsense Randomkiwi 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems notable enough. POV seems pretty much neutral, and NPOV is not criteria for deletion, but more for rewriting. Kntrabssi 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't agree that POV is neutral, and suggest a clear COI between the original article author and the subject. Article claims subject had a "distinguished academic history" at primary and secondary schools--no reference to distinction. Acquisition of two university degrees does not constitute distinction.

Article claims subject is a "distant relative" of other notable people, with no references. Claims he has an interest in politics, but no evidence of any notability in this area, other than a planned speech to a minor party not represented in Parliament. Books listed include a book he may be a contributor to, but I can't find any evidence of this. References cited are not independent, reliable sources, or mainly appear to mention him only in passing. His IMDB profile lists a few appearances on New Zealand television. Google hits do come up with a large response, but almost entirely are from his own publishing company and mirrors. Randomkiwi 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Randomkiwi's points: the "distant relative" claim is in a source but I cannot enter the foreign characters (Chinese). Maybe a Chinese editor can assist if I scanned the book. All the books that he wrote are in the National Library of New Zealand's records, other than the one published in the UK. (You may know that New Zealand publishers are not as good at getting titles on to Amazon and are, consequently, less visible. I do not think this to be a reason to limit New Zealanders' titles.) His work on the British book can be easily found at Amazon UK. On your point about politics, you failed to mention that he had founded a now-defunct political party, which is listed in Wikipedia.
If Googling, I suggest doing -site commands on his own sites: I still managed 109,000 references, but I could not locate mirrors. Next to Raybon Kan, he is probably the most visible male Chinese New Zealander in the country.
Of the footnoted references, he wrote two. I have removed the references where Jack Yan was cited as the author. I disagree that the other references (CNN, The Daily Telegraph) are minor and he would not have been approached if he were not notable. Some other sources have since been added, but I disagree that the ones that were there were unreliable.
I believe the subject is one of the better known brand strategists in New Zealand, was the first digital typeface designer in New Zealand (easily more notable than some in that profession who are in Wikipedia: if he is removed, then quite a few others would have to as well). I trust the above answers your concerns.—Stombs 11:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cleaned up page features sources from notable media
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stenchwort

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 somewhere. Prodego talk 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of worlds in Kya: Dark Lineage

[edit]
List of worlds in Kya: Dark Lineage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research & video game cruft. Poorly-written article appears to have been created by someone playing this game and adding their observations to Wikipedia. I am nominating 2 other related articles for the same reasons:

List of items in Kya: Dark Lineage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of characters in Kya: Dark Lineage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Saikokira 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off i think i fixed the list of characters, second i took the pictures with my own camera and tv and video game of kya, i never intended it to make it sound like a game guide and have gotten rid of it on the list of characters, do you guys even like kya? because you could help fix it too-hotspot

Editing mercs post was an accident i didn't mean to do that, and how is it vandalism to say something about the article that is not vandalism it is disscussing with you. and also i took time out of my life to take pictures jus t for kya and you guys are trying to get rid of the pictures, and also what is the problem with list of worlds in kya dark lineage? can we atleast keep the worlds of kya dark lineage i think that it is the best article that i made out of the three-hotspot

  • Comment. Deleting someone's critical comments in an AfD and replacing them with your own is considered vandalism. And if you want to add your own comments in this AfD then place them underneath the previous comments, as you would do on a talk page. This is the second time I have had to fix them. Saikokira 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason i thought the new edits were up i don't know why but that's what i thought, I think we should delete the items list and add a few items to the main article, but only the most important items like kya's boomy, today i will be fixing up the worlds in kya dark lineage.-hotspot
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:22Z

Haven Middle School

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

Delete. I put this one up for speedy, but another user asked me to put it on AfD. Not even the smallest claim of notability. (They do teach math, though) --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Daniel Bryant 08:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber prima

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

We don't need an article on every Yu-Gi-Oh card ever produced. As a standalone entity, it isn't notable (WP:N) and is rather crufty. Crystallina 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Just because other pages violate notability criteria does not give this page a free pass to. Put those pages on AfD as well. Prodego talk 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Anime Convention

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. No reliable independent third-party sources provided or found to indicate notability. Only sources that can be found are the convention's website, its press release, and its listing on AnimeCons.com's directory, which aren't enough to even come close to passing WP:ORG. --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:
You seem to have missed my point. Click on each of those convention links, and tell me how they're notable please? Absolutely none of them at the time of my post had ANY sources to satisfy notability. It is a completely ridiculous idea to think that this article, and by extension all those others, should be deleted from Wikipedia! whatever you do, try to preserve information.Kopf1988 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep mentioning that you want to "try to preserve information" and link to Wikipedia:Editing policy. Maybe you should look at WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING and WP:ALLORNOTHING for a clearer view on "preserving" everything. --PatrickD 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one, my reference towards preserving information was to a Wikipedia Policy, while you mention only an Essay! Yes, it is true that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but the information here is useful, verified, and more than just a phone-book directory listing. Kopf1988 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "preserve information" bit means that if part of an article is bad, the good parts should be kept. If the subject itself is not article-worthy, that doesn't really apply. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's one interpretation, however I see it as information should be preserved in general, including topics too. Kopf1988 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That philosophy will only lead to cruft. We need to make editorial decisions as to what information is relevant and should be kept and what is simply trivial and unimportant. And if the only reliable sources you can provided is to prove that the convention exists, then its trivial information. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look closely at all the other Anime Convention links I provided (or randomly select a couple!) NONE of them have anything more than AnimeCons.com and the official website to claim notability. Are you telling me that these should all be deleted? Anime Conventions are rarely covered by news media, and they are a fairly new thing. Another Anime Convention has more references than OVER HALF of the articles in the anime conventions category. Kopf1988 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, some cons are missing references, but those aren't being nominated for deletion because -- at least for most of them -- people feel that we can find some reliable sources if we actually sit down and look. (We have been slowly plugging through the con articles adding references, but it takes time.) If you want to nominate them for deletion, nobody's stopping you. ...but I really don't think an AfD on AnimeNEXT (one of your examples) would get far considering it's the 10th largest con in the US and is fairly well known and has received a lot of press coverage. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to keep an article. This AfD is about Another Anime Convention, not some other articles. --PatrickD 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"(We have been slowly plugging through the con articles adding references, but it takes time.)" Again, you missed my main point, and it isn't that other stuff exists, but it is that this article is more referenced than half the stuff that I mentioned! It hasn't got much coverage yet because its new, but it's still in pretty good shape. Kopf1988 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references, however, are not from reliable sources. And the ones that are do are actually directory listings and do not confer notability to the convention. As for pointing out that other convention articles have sourcing problems of their own, you are comparing apples and oranges. Most of those articles have several reliable sources available, but they go cited in the articles. But as for AAC, such reliable sources don't exist to begin with outside of the directory/event listings, such as AnimeCons.com. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick, I noticed you arguing that it would not be fair to "not list an event just because it hasn't happened yet". Wouldn't those conventions be even more non-notable? For reference, I'm referring to your edit to Talk:List of anime conventions at 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC). Kopf1988 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was something I said in December 2005. I no longer feel that way. It goes against WP:CRYSTAL...and that's not relevant to this AfD anyway since this convention HAS happened. I'm not sure why you even bothered to bring it up. --PatrickD 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much as I'd like to see this article cleaned up and preserved, I cannot agree to even a weak keep, for a number of reasons.
  1. The Primary Notability Criterion states, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." The article in question fails the second half of that sentence. Anime-Cons.com is merely a repository of information from press releases and other data that comes directly from the Convention committees. As such, the information there is not independent from the subject.
  2. The other references provided within the article do not satisfy "non-trivial" mentions. The Anime-Mania.net listing is a mere list of upcoming conventions, The AnimeNewsNetwork article is a copy of a press release which is not independent, and the oasismag.com article is a blog entry of one person's account of the convention, without any assertion of press credential.
  3. The article does not contain any information that is not duplicated on the Convention's website, or on AnimeCons.com. What is the encyclopedic purpose of having an article on Wikipedia if it's just a mirror of other reference materials?
  4. And on the subject of "Notability is not policy," guidelines can and more often than not do result in better articles than this one being deleted. In fact the only difference between a policy and a guideline is that the policy is less likely to have exceptions. You have not proven that this article needs an exception.

The best solution that I see is to have the convention contact a number of local newspapers and television stations, give out a few press passes, have them write articles on the convention, and THEN and ONLY THEN, will you have the information to write an article on -- RoninBK T C 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I would say that this article should be an exception is because it is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire. That seems pretty notable. Kopf1988 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...but apparently it wasn't notable enough for Mikkakan, NH's first anime con and the largest in New England until Anime Boston came along. --PatrickD 03:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying that the people who suggested deleting that article were wrong. Kopf1988 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. If Notability is "generally permanent", then Mikkakan will always have the distinction of being the first con in its state (New Hampshire), and the first New England con (as it claims) to have an invited industry guest, even if surpassed in attendance in the New England region by Anime Boston, and now by the convention which is the subject of this very article. The former reason was enough for keeping No Brand Con. I would like to repeat the idea of merging the old Mikkakan articles and this one if a deletion seems likely. ~ SeanOrange 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's a good plan if possible, although I hope this article isn't deleted... it seems so much easier these days to delete information than to add it on WP. Kopf1988 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is the largest in the area does not excuse the article from not having the required sources. If the article for Anime Expo didn't have any secondary sources, it would be deleted too. -- RoninBK T C 09:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still like to see an independent, non-trivial, reliable source stating that. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, they have been added.(View Diff) Kopf1988 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your sources are mostly blogs and/or trivial mentions in directories or listings. They hardly confer any notability on the event - only show that it happened, which is not notable in and of itself. Please read the guidelines on what kinds of sources are required. Nothing you've added has changed my original opinion that this is a non-notable event at this time, and my original recommendation stands. MikeWazowski 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I'm not sure which part of this discussion you are commenting about. My statement that they have been added is referring to This Edit, in reply to Farix's request for independent, non-trivial, reliable sources stating that. That referred all the way back to my assertion that AAC is the largest anime convention in the state. Kopf1988 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The like you provided (as shown in that diff, may be from an independent source - however, it's definitely a trivial mention, as it's only a listing that the convention takes place, and likely taken directly from information provided by the convention itself. The page you link to does not make the claim, as you state, that the convention is the largest one in the state - it is merely a listing of conventions, and your assertion is your own opinion based on information found on that page, and therefore original research, which should not be used. In any event, both this link and this link from that page are definitely trivial mentions, and do not confer any notability or independent editorial opinion about the event in question. The claim on the convention's own website is puffery, and also should not be used without verification by legitimate sources. Either way, it's a non-issue, as I do not believ the article will survive this AfD - I've certainly not seen anything here to change my opinion. MikeWazowski 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that I used original research, but the AAC homepage makes the claim. You say that the claim is puffery, but I provided two sources to validate the claim made on this page. If I did not make the claim, but instead only provided the references to validate it, then it is not original research. I suggest you take another look at the original research policy to realize that the claim is not Unpublished synthesis of published material, because the claim came from this page. Kopf1988 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see where the two links from AnimeCons.com support the claim that it is the largest in NH. The first one is a search result, which is by nature a trivial mention. The second is the AnimeCons.com listing, which we've already established that while it may help prove some facts, it can't support subjective claims like "the largest in X."
The point is, you are trying to use primary sources, (i.e. the convention's own words,) to prove what the convention claims. By our policies, we need second-hand accounts from reliable sources.
Trust me when I say that I am not unsympathetic to what you are doing. But I really think that maybe you need to take a step back, and think about this. Do you maybe have a conflict of interest? Trust me, if it was my favorite convention up for AfD, I'd be upset too.
Look, if this ends up getting deleted, why don't you copy the page to a user subpage, and keep it until you can find some news coverage to back it up, ok? -- RoninBK T C 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been to this convention, or even in the state of New Hampshire, for that matter. My favorite convention is AnimeIowa. Furthermore, as for the references, these are the requirements to say that I have used original research:
* introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
It is not being introduced, as it has already been claimed.
* defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
Irrelevant here.
* introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
Sources have been cited. One to make the claim, two to back it up.
* introduces an analysis, synthesis, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.
I didn't come up with the claim, they did.
The two sources provided show that AAC's claim as the only/largest convention is true, by showing that it can not be so far proved false. Importantly, content must be verifiable, not necessarily verified. If I claimed that I was the only Computer Repair Company in the entire state of Iowa, and multiple phonebooks proved it, that would be good enough verification for wikipedia, right? Kopf1988 06:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I want to say 'keep' since it's notable as New Hampshire's (first?) only Anime con as far as I've been able to determine, but given the already-stated near-complete lack of supporting information about it from secondary sources. The only source I could find was Trancelab.com, but it says nothing about the convention other than it happened, and they took pictures. ~ SeanOrange 06:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first convention in New Hampshire was Mikkakan in 2001. Mikkakan's wikipedia article was deleted last month. --PatrickD 13:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's really bizarre, to delete an article for (what appeared to be) such a significant convention in the area. Such deletions make it difficult to independently verify this sort of information, especially given how fickle the internet can be as a resource for something that people are no longer talking about... Another Anime Convention is still the largest/only New Hampshire con at this moment in time, and it's still ongoing. If these events don't warrant their own individual entries, perhaps we should find a way to merge them into an article about New Hampshire anime conventions, instead of just deleting them? Making the explicit connection to Anime Boston (if sources can be found to support the claim) might also be of some value. ~ SeanOrange 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 edits by a banned user (CSD G5). - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu (Culture)

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

Despite its name, the article is just a POV fork/original research/personal essay created and edited by three suspected socks of Maleabroad (namely Summam, TypeEditor1 and Abcde0) after previous sustained attempts (by other socks of the user) to insert similar text in Hindu article were rejected (see for example). FYI, this blocked user has created similar POV fork articles before; see for example [7], [8]. Abecedare 03:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Daniel Bryant 08:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hank J. Wimbleton

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

As per the afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness Combat, Hank J. Wimbleton is a character in Madness Combat. Since Madness Combat was deleted and protected from recreation, it follows that Hank J. Wimbledon should likewise be deleted. Dugwiki 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason (characters in Madness Combat):

1337 Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dugwiki 22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Rebelguys2 talk 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Iraqi legislative election, December 2005. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:23Z

Furation-Human Rights

[edit]
Furation-Human Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Political party which contested 2005 election in Iraq but no since then no info listed on how it did or if it is still functioning. Questionable notablity PrincessBrat 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Rebelguys2 talk 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:24Z

Mermaid music

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

This article is a combination of original research (WP:OR and an advertisement WP:SPAM, neither of which is desirable. There isn't anything salvageable here that I can see. Crystallina 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Christian Center

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

Non notable church. Article was previously nominated in December 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Christian Center) when it was kept, based on the claims that it had been featured in "notable media" (except the only URL provided was for a Northwest Indiana local website which contained a brief article that was little more than an advertizing write-up, and nwi.com is not "notable media"). I don't see multiple, non-trivial references to this place.

The other reason was that we should "give the stub its time" even though it was 4 months old. Well now it's nearly 7 months, the stub has been given enough time and it is still less than 20 words long. Time to delete it. Saikokira 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, and I don't think this stub will ever be expanded. I also noticed that the article for the pastor of this church, Steve Munsey, appears to be a non-notable stub and probably should also be nominated for deletion. SkipSmith 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no progress, recentism made this appear more notable than it really is. /Blaxthos 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you might want to nominate the pastor of this church's article as well.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does anyone actually do research whilke they are "waiting" for an article to grow?? I found 2 Wall Street journal references and one in Time magazine in 5 minutes. I expeect that papers in the state where it is located would have ample coverage to write a longer article. Edison 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:CHURCH (which despite rejection is still a help), and is sourced and has notability as a megachurch. JRG 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not particularly helpful. WP:N handles this ably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As AMIB says; perhaps it's time to stop beating that particular dead horse. At any rate, delete as nn, since article has no encyclopedic content. >Radiant< 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 2 "references" added to the article after I nominated it are to print publications, are these available anywhere online? It would be useful to be able to confirm them, and to ensure these are not just passing references to the Center. If these references were so easy to find it would have been helpful to have added them after the previous AfD nomination, to address the earlier questions of notability. Saikokira 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To quote from the article, "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" Cloveoil 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the first citation (Time) is of an article describing how they installed a Starbuck's in the church lobby. It's an odd form of notability and not one I'd care to claim, but it may work. I'm agnostic for now. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although the references are weak, it seems to be noticed and with further research adequate references should be findable. Tag for references. --Kevin Murray 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be greatly expanded, however. Notability is not equal to "number of links on the Internet," and that was an odd argument for deletion. Links to other Websites is not a WP policy requirement in confering notability, AFAIK. A paragraph on the Starbucks is warranted, and clearly gives this church notability (and "notoriety" which I suspect is what some mean when they say "notability") since this is a rare and controversial phenomenon. - Nhprman 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Rubenstein

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

Vanity page for a probably non-notable journalist with a lot of unverifiable claims Vartan84 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I'm very dubious about many of the claims. A Google News Archive search confirms that in 1994 he had a syndicated videogame column for the Examiner, and he was listed as a "contributor" at WIRED[10] as late as '99. It's rather interesting to be an underage newspaper columnist.[11] Oh, EW profiled him[12], which seems to tilt toward notability.-- Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unattributable claims (a lot of this seems pretty dubious to me). If we can't verify, it's gotta go. /Blaxthos 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Glen is a part of the history of LonelyGirl15. He's also a songwriter and has other achievements which make him worthy of Wikipedia. I think the move to delete is politically motivated. If the article needs fact-checking and cleaning up, then we can do it. I can clean up the poor writing in a matter of minutes. I am not personally a fan of Mr. Rubenstein and I support his firing from the ARG. Removing him from Wikipedia is a different matter entirely.24.7.78.127 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — 24.7.78.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Lol politically motivated? Wow that's a new one, so is he also like an elected official because that could make him notable. Also the creators of LG15 don't have their own wikipedia pages let alone the person who joined them later.Vartan84 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Unlike the other creators of LG15, Glenn has over a decade's worth of professional media experience and accomplishments. Everyone knows you don't care for Glenn, HyeMew (Vartan84). But this shameless attempt to mess with him shows just how juvenille (and jealous) you really are. I'm sure it pains you that you'll never get a chance to even smell Jessica Rose in person, yet Glenn has directed her many times. And JayHenry should watch what statements he makes when affiliating himself with LG15, because there has been no statement to date that says Glenn is no longer affiliated with the show.
        • Comment I'd like to know where you get off making such rash and imflammatory claims. I didn't even make this nomination out of some sort of "jealous" but after a group decision with many other people. It wasn't even my idea, but they got me to do it. For you to anonymously (despite clearly being the Glenn Rubenstein this very article is about) to lambast the nominator like this and to further threaten another LG15 fan and LGpedia admin is out of control. I can't even believe the vile your spewing here on your own page. It's downright embarassing. Vartan84 17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google search backs up the facts on many of these claims. That link to a game review? It's in the first issue of Wired. If you have the issue in your possession (which I do because it's a collector's item) he is listed on the masthead as a Contributing Editor). JayHenry and Vartan84 are two bitter fans of LonelyGirl15 who are thrilled that a writer and director for the show that they don't care for may have been removed from one of his duties. He is still employed by the show (and if you check, the post where it was announced that he was removed as PM of the ARG has been removed, so he may have been given back that job title as well). Being a teenage video game reviewer is a notable accomplishment, and it's clear that the subject of this article has had a long and varied professional career. And regarding what was written above, consistent month to month bylines on the same subject, under the same column title should be enough to warrant the columnist tag. The Entertainment Weekly article mentions many of his accomplishments as well, as does his appearance on the PBS show Computer Chronicles.VanillaThrice 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It appears that while not yet important, the subject has been noticed on the net and in multiple credible sources now shown in the reference section. Oddly few journalists receive much personal press and based on my experience at AfD, this subject has more recognition than others we have kept. Per BIO this is a borderline keeper. Contrary to JayHenry's assertions elsewhere this does not seem to create a precedent to lower the bar. --Kevin Murray 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After voting last night I've received several threats, off wikipedia, because of my vote. This is absolutely ridiculous and I want nothing to do with this. --JayHenry 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems obvious to me that this page was created, edited, maintained and now defended from deletion by the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE. Besides that simple fact, to hear that he is now making threats "off wikipedia" is unacceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.114.130.106 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — 85.114.130.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. The sources establish notability. Also, the use of terms like "Vanity page" in a nomination is discouraged. -- Black Falcon 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:27Z

Reverse-solarity

[edit]
Reverse-solarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Reverse-solarity.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Reverse-solarity.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Looks at first sight to be a perpetual motion machine. Zero references. Zero related google hits. Prod was removed by the only author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a middle school student's science project. An electrical circuit with three power sources (solar panel and two batteries) and no load. I'll leave a message on the talk page - this is a Handle With Care case. Cbdorsett 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deleted per CSD A everything (A7, A12 for the start). Duja► 16:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dražen cerović

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

Not sufficiently notable; article reads like a résumé or Who's Who entry Cbdorsett 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - Richard Cavell 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Cafesjian

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

Non-notable businessman. Contested speedy. Dennitalk 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:30Z

Major Streets in Mobile

[edit]
Major Streets in Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with no reasoning by anon IP, relisted here for full WP:AFD. Non-notable article, wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminant list of information. Forever un-WP:ATTributable because of WP:N problems. /Blaxthos 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Webb

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

Prod contested with the rationale of "as, though an independant wrestler, he is indeed influential when it comes to hardcore wrestling", hopefully this will be free of similar arguments. Barely notable wrestler, worked a few independent promotions and has since worked Wrestling Society X which is basically cancelled by MTV. Notability is questionable at best, working a few shows for a short-lived promotion on MTV doesn't really meet WP:BIO in my opinion. However it's WP:A where this really falls down, there are no reliable sources that allow a proper encyclopedic article to be created. One Night In Hackney303 04:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This has gone on long enough and has degenerated into an argument over WP:COI (the community is not a battleground). Editors do not have to explicitly state that they have no COI, and assuming that all editors arguing to delete an article have it is failure to assume good faith. Aside from all that, there's a near-unanimous consensus to delete here. --Coredesat 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Bernstein

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

Blatant autobiography of a guy involved in digital imaging and a lot of litigation. Is he actually notable? -- RHaworth 04:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this guy is notable, and he's made some effort in terms of sources etc following email discussions with me, but the style of this is about as POV as it could be, jimfbleak 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just possible that Iviewit could be an article, but there are very few independent and reliable sources out there. Almost all of the information about the patent theft story comes from WP:COI sources. Even the sources in the article are things like this pdf of a 7-year-old industry article that doesn't mention the company at all, annotated with boxes making claims that this is the problem the company solved. If the sources existed -- CNet or John Dvorak or somebody writing "Iviewit solved the internet video problem!" -- they wouldn't have to do that. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per dhartung. /Blaxthos 09:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments please take note that these seem to be changes that can made to change the article but are not reason to delete without the changes. The article referenced [http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/pr5.pdf this pdf is to show that prior to the inventions and even after while it was in filing stage, the problem was existent that video could not be streamed over low bandwidths without severe distortion. It is essential to understand what the inventions solved for, the other articles on the page have others explaining the "holy grail" discoveries such as, Grabbing The Holy Grail of Webcasting. Digital Webcast (August 2000), Stephen Schleicher. I think this editor who claims nobody has written this other than myself is wrong and should read all of the articles that were written.

The patent theft story I am more than happy to remove any reference and point the reader to external sources for that such as Iviewit. As that relates to Dingell forwarding to the Judiciary Committee and ongoing investigations of crimes against the United States & foreign nations, this is public information that should cause no problem as it is factual.

One also need to review the patent office suspensions that clearly show that the IP is under investigation and suspended pending investigations by federal authorities.

As to the statement that I am in a lot of litigation, I ask what exactly you are referring to, my company is in no litigation and I personally am not in litigation, is there something I do not know. I am involved in hosts of ongoing state, federal and international investigations which may prove later to turn into very serious litigations. Also, the art of patent is a litigious game but we are not quite at that point.

Again, I appreciate everyone's help and suggestions in getting this most pivotal invention story documented according to factual history. There are many more evidences of who invented the processes and verifications of such, such as strategic partnerships with industry leaders, licensing with contracts and for example http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/colter%20letter%20to%20Calkins.pdf that led to a signed license for use. There are many others but I cited three or four of them that while old they validate the inventions and the correct time frame. I have tried to leave the criminal elements and accusations from the article but will post a new edit of it in a while where I make some of the suggested changes. Iviewit 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wrote to the first editor (see below) and asked him to note any conflicts he may have with the story before acting as an editor due to the nature of the issue, not anything based on his advise. I noted he commented here without acknowledging if conflict exists and I would also ask any other editors to note if they have any similar conflicts before editing, this is to prevent any undisclosed conflicts upfront.

The suggestion is that you should wait until someone with no conflict of interest writes the article for you. -- RHaworth 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Per the Wikipedia guidlines

I responded

"This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, or that they are strictly forbidden. It is just that people tend to promote themselves, either clearly (like saying "I'm great") or more subtly (like not including important, verifiable negative incidents in their lives, or adding lots of unsourced positive incidents, or giving the negative incidents too little weight). Many people do not have the humility required to write a neutral article that sticks only to published information. Because of this, writing autobiographies is highly discouraged. If one wants to write an autobiography it is advisable to discuss it with the community and seek consensus first."

I had submitted for editing an entry on Iviewit initially and it was edited to become the biography Eliot Bernstein while we worked on the form of the initial Iviewit entry. This was worked on and submitted to the prior editor who made several key points we worked until it appeared neutral and to tell both about the inventions, the inventors and those who surrounded these most pivotal inventions to the digital imaging and video worlds. It is very difficult in this instance to have others get involved on a public basis to aid Iviewit in any way that could put themselves and their families in harms way, this must be considered in how the article is written and by whom. Further, it would appear that if you could core into your issues we could get to a mutual resolution as to how make it work under the allowable guidlines, under special circumstances.

I was unclear if your comments were to Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit or just Eliot Bernstein, if we could put the comments on each article that would be preferable to make the changes that way if no trouble to you.

Regarding the conflict of interest, as this is a sensitive subject under hosts of investigations, I politely ask if you have any conflicts with any of the people found on the homepage, ie law firms, lawyers, accountants, shareholders, etc. Or do you have any other interest in these matters other than from an unbiased editorial point of view? Sorry to ask but you can see by the proposed bill submitted to Senator Dianne Feinstein referenced in Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein, we have even asked the President or signatory on the bill to sign similar conflict waiver before undertaking the matters.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Iviewit 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us see what other editors think. -- RHaworth 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I think I'm the editor referred to above. I don't know enough about the technology to know if this article meets the notability guidelines, but it certainly not neutral and encyclopaedic in tone. "heralded as being such grail" "an amazing start" "in a miraculous fit," "Instead the system that was to protect them instead is on trial for attempting to steal them." jimfbleak 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks Jim! That was the kind of suggestion I was looking for. As you can see by the articles I did not herald it as the grail but rather others did. Either way I see that it could be considered not neutral and I can make those changes. By the way, where did the article go to make the changes. Thanks again. Iviewit 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth"

Iviewit 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reposted the article with changes to hopefully accomodate all. There are several reliable newspaper articles linked, sun sentinel, variety, and the others already mentioned. I have removed the statements that I thought were possibily interpreted as not neutral. Any other suggestions for changes. --Iviewit 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is so poorly written, it is unbelievable. You really want this representing you? This, imo, is one of the most difficult things about writing an article about yourself, you really cannot see how you presented yourself to the world. I will try to edit it down, and others can debate whether to keep or not. Please reconsider whether you want to write your own article on Wikipedia. If you are notable, you deserve much better than this, and leaving it up to regular Wikipedia editors will improve the article. It would be a hundred times better if you took a breath and took the time to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines about articles, because they have been crafted over the years to help writers producer useful and readable articles. KP Botany 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I tried with the first 5 paragraphs or so. I don't know, because of the heavy usage of fluffed peacock terms that the artice can be rewritten accurately. I am concerned, also, about the unsourced comments related to the fraud accusations. It might be best left as a single paragraph or deleted. KP Botany 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KP Botany! I made some minor changes for accuracy but I appreciate your help in editing out the non-neutral parts, etc. I agree it is very hard to do an auto but under the circumstances not many are willing to come forward yet to help me until the mess is cleared. I usually tell all those that attempt that it could be life threatening as it has been for me and others before. Heck, I am so stressed by all this but more so it is hard to even take the kids to school this morning without fearing the car will blow up again killing them and that makes most days harder to focus on things like this. Thus, when someone takes a moment to aid me in any way, especially in a public forum, I count my blessings and say THANK YOU!!! If I can ever be of service to you please do not hesitate to call me. I am writing a book, "The Fight for the Grail" [13] if you want to help me edit it... Also thank you again for your help and input Jimfbleak and all the other editors that have participated. --67.126.206.24 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask all those editors contributing to clarify before comment if they have any conflicts with these matters in anyway. Under Wikipedia guidlines, it would be an editor conflict I am worried about and it could easily and politely cleared with a simple statement of no conflict prior to comments. I have asked the initial editor to disclose and I got no response and further comments, this seems a bit odd. As for deleting the entry as an autobiography that is not a reason for deletion unless the article is biased. I have worked with editors to remove any elements of it and if you have a comment about that please be specific as to the reason in the article. Otherwise blanket deletes do nothing to improve the article to make it a viable autobio. --Iviewit 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable references regarding this person come forward during the AFD period. Press releases don't cut it for my concerns. At present, the article doesn't indicate notability as per WP:BIO. (And considering I've never heard of this person before, and came here after looking at a deletion review request regarding the company, no, I don't have a conflict.) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't really use press releases. for notability. And it's certainly possible to write non-biased articles that should still be deleted; if I wrote an article covering an argument I had a while ago with one of my teachers during high school and gave both sides, it'd be deleted. Veinor (talk to me) 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The references are press releases? Geeze, I used to write press releases, the FIRST rule of a press release is you NEVER write anything negative. It's like using a television commercial as the source of factual information on something. Thanks, Veinor, for the wholesale deletion of extraneous information when I stopped with just a few paragraphs. KP Botany 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were press releases and there are articles from reputable papers, if a press release is not allowed those will be removed, please advise as to the rule that is under. The other articles are newspaper articles from reputable papers. I do not know or never have heard of Tony Fox, thus he must not be an editor. As for press releases not being negative, many press releases are filled with factual information, like -- John Dingell forwarded the allegations of fraud to the House Judiciary Committee for review -- this comes from verifiable letters from Dingell's office to the Judiciary Committee. Press releases that the founders of Adelphia were implicated in crime are not positive or that Libby is going down or Gonsalvez but must be released for the facts for compliance. KP you are next in line after Tony Snow for + spin on the Bush admininstration. --LIBBY CONVICTED BUT GLASS HALF FULL AS MANY HAPPY PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON ARE HAPPY THEY WERE NOT-- Many press releases are negative so I wonder if there is a rule as to if + or - or no press releases are allowed, they were allowed by the PR Companies who also edit. I do appreciate Tony's comments and all others should not be relevant until they state if they have conflict with these matters. Thanks Tony. Come on folks, lets edit it to the rules, clear up any rule violations and let it stand as to the facts. If there are suggestions to make it acceptable under the rules, great. As for the TV commercial being factual, am I to take it that Lavitra does not cause drowsiness when the commercial states that fact or that cigarette smokes kills when TRUTH tells me the # of Americans dead or that Drunk Driving... The articles (misreferenced as Press Releases) already cited above were from newspapers printing articles independently on the technologies: Sun Sentinel, Variety, Digital Webcast, etc. I do not have a lot of time for nonsense editing in my life, what I see here are mostly comments that are wholly false as to the articles, claims that there are no factual references despite that several articles were written by top papers independently and verifying the technologies and the inventors. If the editors would read all the articles and then comment on the page, it would help this discussion. In fact, I am shocked that out of the several articles from reliable papers, the editors here appear to have only read certain articles and ignored the others, this seems like slighted editing in attempt to cause hurried opinions by editors in this forum. --69.229.114.20 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Who ever deleted the newspaper articles from reliable sources mentioned above please return them to the article as they are factual sources. Not sure who made those changes, who ever did that please state your reason for removing them and trying to call them press releases or put them back accordingly. so that they validate the claims.--Iviewit 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP - re eliot bernstein discussion you removed newspaper articles from verified sources such as Variety, Sun Sentinel, digital webcast all independent articles written by journalistic staff and cited them as press release which was not the case for much of what you removed. Also is there are a rule for press releases you can cite, say one that states no negative press releases. Removing the sources that verify the article I am sure was not your intent. Finally all of your edits should be put back until you state if you have any conflicts with these matters. I am suprised that you did not so state no conflict before making more edits, especially where you removed the articles from reliable sources and after repeated requests for disclosure. Also if you removed the childrens names, many bios have these and in fact the reference to Joshua contains valuable information regarding dating the inventions. --Iviewit 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Why are we removing factual information such as that Wayne Huizenga (billionaire Miami Dolphins, Blockbuster, Waste Management) made seed investment and who the strategic partners and other licensees were. Sounds like our editors are removing facts, what is the wikirule from the wikidecider on this. It is interesting that eiditors who refuse to admit or deny conflict when asked - bad wikimanners - who ask for reliable sources and facts are then removing news articles and other facts, whassabe?--Iviewit 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Let's put the original article back up until all editors disclose that they have no conflict and then perhaps we can begin according to the rules. "If it looks like a duck..."--Iviewit 05:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, bias increases with questioning conflicts. There are rules for conflict both for an editor and contributor for a reason. What is editing if conflict exists? When asked if you have conflict, failure to disclose and increasing your rating to strong delete are indications that conflict exists. No conflict equals no problem in disclosure, all other actions to conceal conflict once requested is an indication of biased editing. All editors must adhere to conflict rules or else Wikipedia lacks any integrity. From the Wikirules A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors.

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest.[1] Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and you must always:

avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography. Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia. Editors who may have a conflict of interest This section of the guideline is aimed at editors who may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits are forbidden.


[edit] Declaring an interest Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion. Disclaimer: Wikipedia gives no advice about whether or how to use its pages to post personal details. This guideline will only raise some pros and cons.

Advantages:

By declaring an interest, you pre-empt anyone outing you or questioning your good faith. Most editors will appreciate your honesty. You lay the basis for requesting help in having others post material for you, and/or to audit/approve material you wish to post yourself. Disadvantages:

Your declaration may be invoked against you at some point. Your edits to the area in question may attract extra attention. Your declaration will give you no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics.[4] In the case of commercial editing (editing on behalf of a company):

a disclosure enables you to ask openly for help in getting material posted and edited, but once your position is known, you will have to adhere stringently to neutral edits of affected articles, or no edits at all. Note that if you only correct bias against your company and its interests, and not bias in its favour, your editing will be different from that of a regular Wikipedian, who would be expected to do both.

[edit] Defending interests In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.

[edit] Conflict of interest noticeboard A noticeboard for reporting and discussing incidents that require editors' intervention related to the application of conflict of interest guidelines is available at:

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

I am stunned that as editors of Wikipedia you all continue to fail to disclose if you are conflicted with the subject, that you are removing reliable sources to smear and entry and your degree of bias increases with each request for conflict disclosure. Maybe you don't have to disclose but if you don't you discredit Wikipedia as a reliable source of anything. Trying to delete the article by citing no sources, after removing newspaper publications is damning to the efforts this company has tried to establish. Lets elevate these matters.--69.229.114.20 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP thanks for the message of no conflict. No personal attacks were levied it was merely a request for that disclosure before further editing and like with Jim I look forward to working with you now to get this article in an unbiased light regarding important inventions of our times. Since the inventions are notable on a historical basis that have had major impact on our world I think that it is an absolute encyclopedia entry in substance.--Iviewit 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that the sooner this article is deleted and this editor sanctioned the sooner Wikipedians can get on with creating an encyclopedia. I do have a Conflict of Interest now, I am seriously personally biased against anyone at Wikipedia being further manipulated by this editor. KP Botany 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP are we resorting to personal editorial attacks? Have you asked for sanctions and on what grounds? Now that you have stated that you are conflicted, please remove your edits and further conflict and personal attacks do not seem to advance this discussion.--Iviewit 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Iviewit 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have stated you are conflicted please remove ALL of your edits from the article. Once you have done that, I will gladly do the same. KP Botany 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles cited in press releases No, cite the newspaper article, not the internal press release.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought: Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."

This is precisely what a press release is:

"A news release, press release or press statement is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something claimed as having news value."

If you disagree with the substance of my edits, please say so on the article's talk page, by explicitly stating why you think your edit version should stand and why mine shouldn't. But please do so without any personal attacks on me. Just because Wikipedia has a set of guidelines you disagree with doesn't mean that editors trying to follow those guidelines are doing so because they have a conflict of interest. I have no COI with your or this article. I don't know you, and I've never heard of you until this article, and it will not be a requirement of this article that every editor satisfy your personal requirements for editing. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and other editors know that this is the type of article I generally fight to keep, and work with other editors to produce a good article, namely small biographies. Making accusations against me isn't going to get you what you want, or appear to want, namely your article in Wikipedia. Working with other editors and learning Wikipedia's style and policy guidelines would be a much better tactic.

I did work with a hostile editor once and eventually, with a group of other editors, produced a top notch biography that recently went to good article status. I put up with personal accusations to get a good, well-written, factually acurate, nicely layed out, enjoyable to read article. But I won't do it again.

There are excellent guidelines available all over Wikipedia about how to write articles, but please start with WP:A.

KP Botany 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP again thanks for the conflict statement. On Eliot Bernstein article I did state that the three news paper articles you removed were in fact not press releases but articles written by the paper and unbiased news journalists and asked they be put back in. As for press releases if they are unusable we will delete. But then can we use the actual correspondence from Lowey and Dingell and cite those as links or whatever to the actual letters? I am not hostile but I did find other editors on that article and this one avoiding the conflict question and as you know now, there are some who never want the truth about these inventions to be told to the public. As for the other issues on Eliot Bernstein I would appreciate that for each deletion we discuss prior to change so that we reach agreement. --Iviewit 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As you are demanding I leave for COI reasons, please remove all of your edits from this article immediately, and I will be glad to follow your lead. KP Botany 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP I have stated my conflict for discussion and the reason that authoring such could endanger an authors life, since my and family's lives are already in grave danger... Your new conflict seems predicated on anger and spite for unknown reasons. You should not wait for others to make right actions before you do what is right for you. I did not demand you leave, you stated a conflict in a mean and hostile tone and that should be cause for recusal. --Iviewit 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My conflict arose purely because of the mean and hostile tone you took with me when you disagreed with my removing press releases from your article. When I made an edit you liked, I was a great editor. You are the one concerned about COIs, and you keep raising them. I suggest that the surest way to alleviate your concerns is to remove the biggest COI from the article: yourself. This is enough on the topic. KP Botany 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not assume hostile tone at you, I found removing articles from reliable sources citing them as as press release was wrong and asked for help in understanding your changes. I disputed your cliam that press release are positive and made a joke about tony snow. Your comments came with another editor who made reference to gay voting, any comments ion retort to that were not directed at you. When you denied conflict prior to stating conflict , I wrote to you that your comments could stand, at least to me, as you had stated no conflict, then seeing you change course I made my statements that you should recuse.--Iviewit 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)--Iviewit --Iviewit 20:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles cited in press releases

[edit]

No, cite the newspaper article, not the internal press release.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought: Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."

This is precisely what a press release is:

"A news release, press release or press statement is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something claimed as having news value."

If you disagree with the substance of my edits, please say so on the article's talk page, by explicitly stating why you think your edit version should stand and why mine shouldn't. But please do so without any personal attacks on me. Just because Wikipedia has a set of guidelines you disagree with doesn't mean that editors trying to follow those guidelines are doing so because they have a conflict of interest. I have no COI with your or this article. I don't know you, and I've never heard of you until this article, and it will not be a requirement of this article that every editor satisfy your personal requirements for editing. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and other editors know that this is the type of article I generally fight to keep, and work with other editors to produce a good article, namely small biographies. Making accusations against me isn't going to get you what you want, or appear to want, namely your article in Wikipedia. Working with other editors and learning Wikipedia's style and policy guidelines would be a much better tactic.

I did work with a hostile editor once and eventually, with a group of other editors, produced a top notch biography that recently went to good article status. I put up with personal accusations to get a good, well-written, factually acurate, nicely layed out, enjoyable to read article. But I won't do it again.

There are excellent guidelines available all over Wikipedia about how to write articles, but please start with WP:A.

KP Botany 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP again thanks for the conflict statement. On Eliot Bernstein article I did state that the three news paper articles you removed were in fact not press releases but articles written by the paper and unbiased news journalists and asked they be put back in. As for press releases if they are unusable we will delete. But then can we use the actual correspondence from Lowey and Dingell and cite those as links or whatever to the actual letters? I am not hostile but I did find other editors on that article and this one avoiding the conflict question and as you know now, there are some who never want the truth about these inventions to be told to the public. As for the other issues on Eliot Bernstein I would appreciate that for each deletion we discuss prior to change so that we reach agreement. --Iviewit 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are demanding I leave for COI reasons, please remove all of your edits from this article immediately, and I will be glad to follow your lead. KP Botany 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP I have stated my conflict for discussion and the reason that authoring such could endanger an authors life, since my and family's lives are already in grave danger... Your new conflict seems predicated on anger and spite for unknown reasons. You should not wait for others to make right actions before you do what is right for you. I did not demand you leave, you stated a conflict in a mean and hostile tone and that should be cause for recusal. --Iviewit 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My conflict arose purely because of the mean and hostile tone you took with me when you disagreed with my removing press releases from your article. When I made an edit you liked, I was a great editor. You are the one concerned about COIs, and you keep raising them. I suggest that the surest way to alleviate your concerns is to remove the biggest COI from the article: yourself. This is enough on the topic. KP Botany 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not assume hostile tone at you, I found removing articles from reliable sources citing them as as press release was wrong and asked for help in understanding your changes. I disputed your cliam that press release are positive and made a joke about tony snow. Your comments came with another editor who made reference to gay voting, any comments ion retort to that were not directed at you. When you denied conflict prior to stating conflict , I wrote to you that your comments could stand, at least to me, as you had stated no conflict, then seeing you change course I made my statements that you should recuse.--Iviewit 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC) --Iviewit 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC) --Iviewit 20:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Ageless. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:32Z

Never grow old

[edit]
Never grow old (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems to be just some random nightclub or bar. No independent sources are provided to establish notability, and in my mind it hardly even makes a claim to notability. This seems somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phyrst which I nominated a while back. It was de-prodded with comment "contesting prod, as there aren't very many Finnish nightclubs on Wikipedia as it is, also added category Oulu." I disagree that there's anything inherently notable about nightclubs, and I disagree even more strongly that Finnish nightclubs should be accorded treatment any different from others, regardless of their representation on Wikipedia. Deranged bulbasaur 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANHL 10:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:35Z

Advertising Cyprus

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

NN, as per WP:WEB. Only 2 inward links at Google[14]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal article Ok the article needs to be revamped however to remove my article with such malice is not justified—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damcy (talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Airwolf. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:35Z

Michael Coldsmith Briggs III

[edit]
Michael Coldsmith Briggs III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an insufficiently notable fictional character. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging. Delete and then redirect to Airwolf. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:36Z

Kris Kloss

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

Contested prod. Non notable wrestling announcer, worked for the new cancelled Wrestling Society X on MTV which lasted a couple of months at best. No prospect of the article being expanded significantly beyond its current state One Night In Hackney303 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bret Ernst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fetishes

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

Unencyclopedic, and topic more than adequately covered by sexual fetishism. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. Note the {{underconstruction}} tag and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncommon fetishes. The article is undergoing a merge. –Pomte 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Pomte. This is a good-faith effort to fix a problem article, give it some time. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the {{underconstruction}} tag has been there for over 2 weeks and I don't think it qualifies as a reason to speedy close a deletion debate any longer. Two weeks is sufficient time to bring an article up to standards to at least survive a deletion debate. I'm still undecided as to whether that is the case - it's kind of late and I'm not sure what to think of it - so I'm abstaining from a !vote right now. However I felt that the claim the article is under construction as a reason to terminate the discussion early no longer holds water. Arkyan 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and redir to article that better covers the topic (sexual fetishism). /Blaxthos 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncommon fetishes. Take that as you wish. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I maybe mistaken, but isn't it against the rules to put the article up for deletion if it just had a debate about 2(?) weeks ago?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the relevant parts of the deletion policy state: "A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion." Also, "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept." It's already been brought up in a comment by Arkyan that after the older AFD was closed, the "under construction" template has lingered on the page without much growth in the article. So no, it doesn't seem to be against policy to renominate so soon, but we are treading close to the edge on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sexual fetishism as mentioned above. I've given this a little bit of thought since my original comment, and while the hard work that has gone in to this particular list is appreciated, it appears that the topic is already well covered in the other article and there is no reason to duplicate. If there is any new information then merge it in, but otherwise just redirect it. Arkyan 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Arkyan. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no deadline to finishing articles and volunteer contributors on Wikipedia do have other obligations. Two weeks is really not that much time for such a big project. If the consensus is to redirect as a plausible search term, then please preserve the edit history so that this can be properly recreated and expanded in the future. -- Black Falcon 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Leaders in Panzer General II

[edit]
List of Leaders in Panzer General II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a player's manual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - the article author has clearly marked the article as under construction (with the {{underconstruction}} template), and the last edit to this article is only 6 days prior to this nomination. Furthermore, the main author of this article is also the main author of the "parent" article Panzer General II, which, according to the article's talk page, is also still in work. - NDCompuGeek 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as part of the non-notable slew of fictional characters from one movie. /Blaxthos 09:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as excessive level of detail of interest only to players of the game. This is not a brief overview that helps readers understand why the game is of interest (such material, if it were present, should be merged to the parent article about the game). Wikipedia is not a rulebook, a game manual, or GameFAQs. See the guidelines in the computer games WikiProject, or the analogous guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Barno 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the game guide portion (which refers specifically to tutorials) in WP:NOT, but could you point me to the section that indicates Wikipedia could not include information similar to a game manual? It seems to me that if the information attributable, is not covered in the game's actual manual, and is useful to players of the game, then it does not fall under the "indiscriminate collection of knowledge" section. Is there something I'm not seeing here? Rwhealey 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did write this article, so I'm a bit biased, but I think that this provides valuable infromation to a player of the game, and is not an attempt to be a game guide. The article is well-sourced, and uses a number of sources that were very difficult to find, out of reach of most players. I intend to expand the article as well as the main Panzer General II, hopefully explaining all the technical game terms. Furthermore, a google search for Leaders in Panzer General II returns 274,000 hits, while Leaders "Panzer General II" returns 729. These "leaders" were an important selling point for the game, and were even shown on back of the game's box. Rwhealey 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FICT point 2, which allows "lists of minor character, concepts, and places" (paraphrased). Even if this article should not exist as a stand-alone list, it should be selectively merged into another list or into the main article (with less detail, of course). However, that's an editorial and content organisation issue which I won't bring up here. -- Black Falcon 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 in light of new evidence. I honestly don't mean to "waste community time." Deranged bulbasaur 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonette

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

The article begins by saying they're signed to Mercury UK, which seems to be heading in a notable direction, but then we have "Although no official material has been released yet..." basically admitting that they haven't yet done anything. Bands that haven't released any albums are about as notable as authors who haven't written any books or influential short stories. It says they've done a tour, which might be the article's salvation, but then admits that it involves "small venues." It certainly doesn't help that the only two sources are a myspace page and the band's first party website. That raises questions of attributability to go with the other problems. Deranged bulbasaur 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headboard (band)

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

This has been tagged for clean-up, but there aren't any sources to clean it up with. Fails WP:MUSIC. Also, someone attempted to nominate this in October but it never got processed. Appears to be a vanity article created by a particular band member who has made a vanity article about himself as well. Vartan84 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment This nom for deletion is based on a grudge that Vartan84 has against a particular person. If you look at his history/talk page this appears to be his modus operandi in nominating articles for deletion. Tieran11 06:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Accusations of a grudge are unfounded- and I have only nominated the band and it's lead singer, as this person in question has been grooming and maintaining these pages for vanity puroses. This nomination was actually done on behalf of others in the first place, and the decision came after many hours of consultation and careful reflection. These many people decided such a nomination was necessary and asked me to do the nominating. Besides, even if it was a grudge, that doesn't make the pages in question any more keepable. Vartan84 16:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I am not a wikiexpert and thus will not vote, but whether this page should be deleted should be judged on its merits, not claims of grudges one way or another. Plus the above comment from Tieran11 appears to be just another incarnation of the 'particular person' at issue. --Insincerecovedwellerskibachatd 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the holy trinity: WP:A/WP:N/WP:MUSIC /Blaxthos
  • Weak keep - some definite claims to notability if you read it, but no references, just a few external links.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Rubenstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozzykhan (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Agriculture. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:38Z

Agricultural systems

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

Reads like school project, and is at least marginal original research. Delete and redirect to something -- although right now what it should redirect to escapes me. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the lack of anything better, redirect to Agriculture. --Nlu (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 a how-to guide, no verified information to merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation of banknotes

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to type pages are clearly discussed under WP:NOT i kan reed 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The article is dealing with a conservation related subject, and probably needs a stub tag (and category) in that direction. At present is does not comply with style requirements, and is thus a weak article, but so are many stubs. Conservation techniques are clearly encyclopaedic, though this article is not one yet. Peterkingiron 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Elkman suggested to make a stronger article. But if as a result of addition of further material it becomes too much to merge, just keep and clean up to make it a third-person encyclopedia article. Either way, the how-to aspects would make a great contribution to Wikibooks, and placing links in appropriate Wikipedia articles would help readers find it. Fg2 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, empty. Article about technologies and techniques used to conserve paper documents would be important and useful. (They are very diverse and very interesting.) Pavel Vozenilek 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge into Banknote#Paper money collecting as a hobby Media preservation as a separate section. The topic of "banknote preservation" is an encyclopedic one that should receive mention somewhere. Other editors can later incorporate it into the main body of the article. -- Black Falcon 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the information is unsourced and the prose is not the best (in fact, my rewrite of the first paragraph may have made it worse), deletion is seems an attractive option. -- Black Falcon 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The existing information is minimal (and unsourced) and should be (merged, if you wish) in a "Preservation" section of the relevant banknote article unless it becomes evident that it is large or notable enough to require a separate article. Note that similar info on stamps is in a section of Stamp collecting (itself summarized in Stamps), with one of the tools described there being notable enough to have a small article of its own (stamp hinge), as opposed to a separate Preservation of stamps article. Media preservation is not a good merge target, as banknotes are not primarily information-carrying "media" so much as artifacts of value in themselves. Media preservation would get unwieldy if it had sections on preserving instances of this sort (such as stamps, comic books, for instance) - the article is concerned with preserving the information, which may entail copying, or transcribing from one medium to another, something usually frowned on by the issuers of banknotes! - David Oberst 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, ... I just admire the quality of their work ... and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, .... right? . . . . . . . . . I have adjusted my comment in light of your excellent argument. -- Black Falcon 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vikings Groups

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

No assertion of notability made, and while it was still under construction, when an article utterly fails to assert notability... Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: I had hoped to expand the article into a history of each of the local groups listed. Some of them have been around a long time and IMO have a history worth recording. This has not been possible to do, so please delete the article and I will write individual histories as I get the information. Guthroth 15:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, blank article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Green

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

Insufficiently notable movie character. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Man of the Year (2006 film). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:40Z

Jack Menkan

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

Insufficiently notable movie character. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 TSMC. (What, TSMC, a company with market cap USD 50 billion only has a puny stub?—Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:42Z

WaferTech

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

This was originally a db corp case, but the article was improved and the speedy tag removed (validly, I think). There's some discussion on the talk page from when it was a contested speedy. That said, there's still no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Of the four references, the first is the company's official website, the second and third tangentially mention the company's power consumption, and the fourth is broken. Nothing about this company particularly stands out. It seems to be just a boring commodity semiconductor fab, with no particularly unique features. Deranged bulbasaur 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing agreed yesterday to buy out some of its partners in WaferTech, a joint venture that operates a wafer plant in Camas, Wash. It will pay $350 million for a 23 percent stake belonging to the Altera Corporation, $60 million for a 4 percent stake belonging to Analog Devices and $40 million for a 2.7 percent stake belonging to Integrated Silicon Solutions. All three transactions should close this month, Taiwan Semiconductor said, giving it about 97 percent ownership of WaferTech." [15]

- Ozzykhan 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly boring, but still notable according to the published references. If the current owner paid $350 million to buy out a partner who owned 23 percent of the company, that puts a total evaluation on the business of about $1.5 billion, which is fairly impressive. And I added an additional reference, Hoover's, at http://www.hoovers.com/wafertech/--ID__113377--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml --Eastmain 03:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still not convinced that mentions of that kind establish independent notability. At most, that advocates for a slight merge into TSMC since, by the sound of it, they were never an autonomous operation and are now almost totally subsumed into Taiwan Semi. Deranged bulbasaur 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you ask my suspicion I'd tell you that the only reason the plant hasn't been identified directly with its parent company is that associating with a foreign government tends to create negative brand implications in the domestic market. For an example, notice how British Petroleum refers to itself exclusively as "BP" in the U.S. Deranged bulbasaur 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just don't think that the 3 sentences in NY Times asserts the notability of WaferTech. If anything, it is adding to the notability of TSCM (who now have a $1.5 billion subsid!). At most, the WaferTech information could be merged into the TSCM article, if infact it is one of their largest assets - Ozzykhan 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article also has several other external references. WaferTech is one of the largest corporations in Clark County, Washington and a significant presence in Silicon Forest. As far as affiliation with TSMC, maybe we could add "A TSMC Company" which shows up on their webpage. I will do some more research and add links/entries showing their interaction with the state of Washington. From what I understand, they are owned by TSMC and considered part of the family but are treated with some autonomy. Rms1 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Rms1[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and antisemitism

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

The opening sentence states: "There have been increasing reports of anti-Semitic incidents on university campuses across North America, Europe, and Australia." However, no citation is provided to substantiate this assertion. Instead, a variety of anecdotes are given. What the article does is attempt to tie these anecdotes together into a theme: namely, that many universities are hotbeds of antisemitism. Therefore, this article constitutes original research, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the titles of cited refs #2 (""The Rough Beast Returns") and 7 ("ADL: Antisemitic Incidents Soar in N. California"), and the second paragraph in cited ref 8 ("Over the past 20 months, many fronts have been opened in the Palestinian offensive against Israel. One of the most important has been on American college campuses."), it appears the lead assertion is not WP:OR. But regardless, this article appears to be about the events themselves, maybe limited to some recent timeframe. The article as a whole is not about the recent increase, so nom based on that seemingly minor poin being uncited is not valid. The overall theme of the page per its title appears to be supported by cited refs (talking about...well, antisemitism on college campuses and in academia) not just news reports of the events, so the collection of these events is not OR either. The article seems to be a bit vague about its scope (are we talking among students or among faculty, for example) and needs a better intro describing the topic before launching into examples...hardly a reason to delete the page though. From the history, it looks like this page was a splitoff of a larger one so perhaps some context and general discussion got left behind there? DMacks 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article requires, nay demands, cleanup. This is an important topic, but this is a poorly sourced POV muckrake of an article that conflates opposition to the policies of Israel and anti-semitism. (Obviously they may at times overlap. But an encyclopedia article shouldn't do it deliberately.) There is simply no way that an article with the generic title "Universities and antisemitism" doesn't once mention the era of the Ivy League quota, for example. The quotes in the lead are deliberately provocative and make poor points (e.g. someone who conflates political rejection with antisemitism, someone else who is surprised that there are rumors about 9/11 -- or at least rumors that offend him). And what to make of sources that say things like, College students got some bad press last May with the release of a poll conducted by the Luntz Research Co. for the group Americans for Victory over Terrorism. "Only 16% believe Western culture is superior to Arab culture," the poll found, "but 79% do not." If true; it explains a lot about what’s happening on the campuses of America. (Did the poll even ask whether respondents did not entertain the idea that any one culture is superior?) The remainder seems to be a survey of some random incidents. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criticisms you give above are pretty much the reason why I nominated the article; thanks for outlining these points so clearly. While "keep and cleanup" is an understandable viewpoint, the fact is that most such articles never do actually get cleaned up. This one is so bad it should be rewritten from scratch. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this article is a terrible mess, compromised by presentism and weasel words such as 'incident'. At the moment it seems like an original research laundry list of anecdotes, often taken from taken from dodgy sources like the 'Jewish Federation of Northeast Pennsylvania'. A better version may be possible, but if it's not fixed in timely manner, it should be deleted.--Nydas(Talk) 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • very strong delete this article is forever going to be a POV-target essay (from both sides, no doubt) that will always be a soapbox for original research and cries afoul. Wikipedia isn't the place. /Blaxthos 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Nydas. See article talkpage; The authors do not appear to be interested in discussing the difference between opinion on the actions of Israel and anti-semitic rhetoric. If there was a parent article I would support a merge back. LessHeard vanU 13:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge contents back to New anti-Semitism. Currently the article reads like a POV essay, and the title itself is very broad; a better title would be something along the lines of: Reported cases of anti-Semitism in Universities - Ozzykhan 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is already from New anti-Semitism, or Merge back to New anti-Semitism if there is room over there. IZAK 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as previous. Without more investigation, as to what else there is, I cannot say more. Personally, I am concerned at the politically-motivated academic boycotts of Israeli intellectuals, which should perhaps be discussed somewhere; may be they are. With a controversial subject, it is inevitable that the article will show a POV, but that is unobjectionble as long as the counter arguments (probably provided by another contributor) are allowed to appear. The title is unsatisfactory, but 'New Anti-semitism in universities' might be acceptable for what is presumably intended to be a sub-article of New anti-Semitism, of course with a link using a 'main' template in that article. Peterkingiron 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename appears to have some notability, but I think a better name would be Universities Known For Antisemitism or Universities Known To Be Antisemitic.--Sefringle 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because it includes references doesn't make it NPOV. It's horribly one-sided, and the very title implies that "universities are hotbeds of antisemitism" (re:nomination). Merge back into mother article at least. Lampman 16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So long as there are sources that link the two ideas together this is notable and non-OR, and there is plenty of recent info that does so [16], [17], [18], etc. Joshdboz 19:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to e.g. List of antisemitic incidents at universities. The sources for this article show a series of individual incidents in particular universities in particular times and places. The article extrapolates from this list a phenomenon which it describes as a growing trend etc. There is no basis at all for describing a phenomenon or a trend, nothing sourced showing any comparison to a past or any overall summary. These parts of the article are pure original research and have to go. What's left is simply a list of incidents, and the article title should reflect this. Definitely would disagee with titles like Universities known to be anitsemetic or similar -- again, cannot extrapolate from individual incidents to claims about a way a university is known. Need to keep strictly to the facts here and avoid unsourced claims in order to justify keeping anything at all. --Shirahadasha 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Keep per additional sources found. Article still needs work, additional sources, more careful wording. --Shirahadasha 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per citations in article. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not OR as can be seen from the sources used. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. the article in The Age, which discusses a trend, discusses only Australia. Would like to see more articles from e.g. general news media discussing a global trend. --Shirahadasha 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic collection of opinions and anecdotes, pure recentism (universities do exist for millennia), war zone. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quickly. It's awful. The article puts forth the thesis that antisemitism is on the rise in universities in the western world. There is no reliable secondary source given to back up that assertion. What it does have is a bunch of anecdotes instead. There is one reliable secondary source mentioned amongst the references, the British Parlamentary Inquiry. What is worrying is that the article again just presents anecdotes culled from that report instead of conclusions. One suspects that whoever put this there engaged in cherry-picking evidence. Dr Zak 03:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Veinor (talk to me) 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Junker

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

Fails notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. Write On 1983 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:44Z

Palestinian propaganda

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

Violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV policies. —Moondyne 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Linux Link Tech Show. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:45Z

[edit]
The Linux Link Tech Show's Past Guests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is of interest to a very small group of people. If any of the appearances were especially notable for the show (or the people), describe at The Linux Link Tech Show article. Kevinsam 06:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:45Z

Steve Sohn

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Foldès

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

delete This is an extremely fringe person of little notariety to consider for inclusion. Some of the related surgical techniques are ok (but even they are so super tertiary multiple entries overdo things), but as far as I can tell there is nothing to distinguish this person within my field of surgery to be featured Droliver 07:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Prodego talk 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BookRags

[edit]
BookRags was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-28. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookRags/2006-09-28.
BookRags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cavalcade of Wikispam

CONTINUOUS WIKISPAM. This time it appears a Wikiepdia editor, who previously only edited or contributed to articles in a narrow field of science, has taken it upon his or herself to champion inclusion of this spammy site which had been deleted repeatedly. The only references in the article presented by the editor are press releases and the about page, sources clearly not part of notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.123.120 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-14 07:42:21

  • The article at this title has only been deleted once, not "repeatedly", and a good faith interpretation of the actions of Lethaniol (talk · contribs) is that xe is trying to create a good article on this subject from sources, but that xe has simply not chosen any independent sources, not being aware that one should employ independent sources. The question for AFD is whether any such sources exist. You have presented no evidence that you have actually looked to see whether this is the case. Your nomination is based solely upon the sources cited in the article. It is every editor's responsibility at AFD to do the research. This means looking for sources yourself, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. One editor in the last AFD discussion looked for sources xyrself, and cited an article about BookRags written in 2000 by Beth Bruno. Uncle G 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reason I have recreated this article is because I believe it is notable. A search for literature guides in google will bring out BookRags in the top 20 results [23], and Alexa data suggests that BookRags is continuing to move up the rankings [24]. Having said that reliable sources are required, and I need to work on that now (note I have been busy with other things, and when I have edited BookRags it has been to remove inappropriate comments). A criticism that has been leveled is that this is just a spammy site. I have seen no evidence of this, but even if this is the case, as long as the subject is notable then even if it does spam it should still have an article. Also note that one of the main reasons I became interested in BookRags is because it had easy and cheap paid access to published material, that I could not find elsewhere. I will add more soon. Cheers Lethaniol 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in terms of my experience - my contributions and experience go well beyond science, including development of the articles Catch-22 and Waldorf Education, being the main developer of WP:ADOPT and current involvement in two ArbCom cases by mentoring involved parties - [25] and [26].
  • Independent sources as mentioned there is the Q&A by Beth Bruno [27], also education institutions starting to use BookRags as an external link [28] and [29], news on development of Sonet Remixing [30], a comparison of online study guides [31]. Hmmm I admit these look a bit weak, but please note none of them are blogs or personal reviews - that is all the semi-notable links I can find. I will leave it up to others to decide whether it is enough. Cheers Lethaniol 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been deleted many times, perhaps not under this name but under bookrags.com or bookrags Inc. I remember that, and I see nothing had changed. I am not sure if the site is "spammy" but I do know it had to be removed several times from various other sections for spamming Wikipedia. The sources above are not notable and at least one of them, the webknowhow.net article, is a reprint of a press release. There is no evidence that educational institutions are using Bookrags, merely a directory-style link from an Indiana department of Education website. And there is an interview with the founder from 2000. Sorry, this clearly does not meet notability guidelines. Seizer000 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does the site meet WP:WEB? - Ozzykhan 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is certainly intended as spam on behalf of this company. This company is fairly unethical in its pay and its treatment of its workers; this is documented and was included in the entry, validating the page somewhat, and the fact that it was taken out confirms that the article only exists to promote BookRags. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. IP - 24.71.104.147
I suggest Anon IP you read WP:AGF carefully - this article IS NOT intended as spam. I wrote the article in good faith, but I do understand that it may not meet WP:WEB. How it treats it workers is irrelevant to whether it is notable enough. Note the reason why the info on it unethical pay was removed was because there was no source to back it up. Although this AFD may be closed with a delete, I suggest people disregard 24.71.104.147's comments, as they are clearly in bad faith. Cheers Lethaniol 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree about bad faith of the article's originator, however in terms of WP:WEB it seems pretty cut and dry-- it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Sites like these are on the very edge and personally I think WP:WEB is the problem, not the site. If that ever changes, this site could be resubmitted but until then it does not meet the guidelines.Metrofeed 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[Metrofeed][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 wasspeedy'. `'mikka 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Correspondent"

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

Page name in wrong format - has quotation marks - probably an new user was experimenting Snowman 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image:JohnnyCashOrangeBlossomSpecial.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:47Z

Jimmy Carter's rabbit

[edit]
Jimmy Carter's rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Created to insert a bigger "controversy" about Jimmy Carter. There are alot of significant events in this biography but they don't get as much attention compared to what this person is giving regarding "Jimmy Carter's rabbit". ViriiK 09:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, possibly merge; rename to 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident for now. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:49Z

George W. Bush's pretzel

[edit]
George W. Bush's pretzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Created to insert a bigger "controversy" about George W. Bush. There are alot of significant events in this biography but they don't get as much attention compared to what this person is giving regarding "George W. Bush's pretzel". ViriiK 09:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. wikipedia is not paper. It is not the topic's fault that the topic attracted a wikipedian. If we start discriminating by importance, wikipedia will be in big trouble `'mikka 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Nlu (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As long as the article is NPOV and has sources I see no reason for deletion. Could be moved, merged and/or renamed, but that is a different discussion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge to George W. Bush. I had never even heard of this incident before, and at most it seems like 2 or 3 sentences is enough for the article. TJ Spyke 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article is sourced and appears to be NPOV, but I do have to ask... does this event really mean anything for George W Bush? Or for Pretzels? This appears to be dredged out a small series of news stories occuring in a very short space of time, with nothing appearing afterwards. The proposed Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline elaborates on how and why such articles can be inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional. There is only one inbound wikilink to this article, a seealso in the president-rabbit article. A look at the talk page doesn't seem too hot on the inclusion of this event in the article, even as a wikilink. -- saberwyn 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not support the nominator's opinion that this was somehow created to increase controversy and feel the nom should be warned for casting unproven aspersions against other editors (unless there is proof this article was in fact created with the alleged intent). However unlike the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, the Bush-choking-on-pretzel event was a far less notable incident and one that has not really had the same pop culture impact. 23skidoo 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I can see no good reasons to delete this, especially as it is already NPOV with some good references. --Apyule 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possible merge/rename If the article is sourced and NPOV per Wiki guidelines I see no reason to delete - however there may be a case for renaming it or moving to a George Bush incident page. If per the nominator there are other incidents which deserve more attention, then if these could be identified a subpage could be created incorporating all such events, including this one. I also feel that unless some justification can be given for the accusation of stoking up controversy the nominator should be warned for assuming bad faith. Addyboy 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the incident drew a large amount of media attention/imagination making it a good idea for WP to have a concise collection of all the facts as a historical event...yet at the same time, it would be ridiculous to put three paragraphs on the incident in the actual George W. Bush article. As creator, find it odd that nominator accuses me of being politically-motivated to attack Carter in the Jimmy Carter's rabbit AFD...then accuses me of being politically motivated to attack Bush in the George W. Bush's pretzel AFD they also started. Do I just hate everybody? :PSherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back in to George W. Bush. The event may have been newsworthy and the article may be NPOV and sourced. Unlike the Lewinsky scandal, for example, which was a major event and had lasting consequences for Bill Clinton there really isn't much to be said about the whole pretzel choking thing that cannot be accomplished with a small section in the parent article. All it really amounts to is a bit of presidential trivia and some joke fodder. Arkyan 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteworthy incident, with numerous stories over an extended period, and has become a meme with respect to Bush's Presidenct as was the killer rabbit to Carter's. Several deletion arguments are of the "IDONTIKEIT" or "INEVERHEARDOFIT" variety and fail in the light of abundant covereage in reliable sources which satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT and even the proposed WP:NOTNEWS . Edison 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the newsworthy nature of the event which involved a U.S president.--JForget 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course its "newsworthy", its the President of the United States. If Air Force One lands somewhere or the president does something, its in the news. Seriously, CNN had a short report recently about the president's plane landing at Andrews AFB, its home base. Just because an article can be written about something doesn't necessarily mean it should. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anything that almost kills a president is worthy of an article. Nardman1 01:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename or Merge, notable and referenced, but the article name seems a bit tacky. Possibly a merge into Bush's article or even a pretzel article. The article does need to be cleaned up though. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chainsaw-Merge if you're feeling nice, Delete if you're feeling cranky. Not all "noteworthy incidents" need their own articles - we're not a news service (did Wikinews cover this? No? Why are we doing that, then?). I'd be more willing to keep this as a separate article if there were, say, a few books examining the controversy, media reaction and the implications to the world politics, and several media mentions depicting this specific incident in retrospect as "one of the lowest point of GWB's career", or something. You know, something that would give the picture that this had tons of impact or something and that every man, woman and child on this planet should give a darn. People have slight brushes with death all the time - if the guy had died on that, that would have probably been remarkable. This, however... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with George W. Bush. I seriously don't think this is notable enough to have its own article, but perhaps its notable enough to put in the main GWB article. --Deskana (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lampman 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Everyking 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the article, he didn't go to the hospital and it didn't affect his plans. I would hardly say "it nearly killed him." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a reason for deletion. This was notable and interesting, and WP:NOT paper. JRG 02:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Prodego talk 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantods

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

del transwikied dicdef. The article is nothing but dicdef (unreferenced, too) and a couple of usage quotations `'mikka 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straphanger

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

Blatant dicdef, should be transferred to Wiktionary. There should be a page for Straphanger (film) created but this is unencyclopedic content Robbielatchford 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD (Keep) which ended on February 18, 2007. --Oakshade 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel Bryant 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"helicopter girl"

[edit]

The notability of this article's subject is extremely questionable, and that combined with the misused title, formatting and prose indicate a likely conflict of interest. — Lenoxus 09:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:51Z

Montgomery County School District

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

The article contains no assertion of notability and no attribution Butseriouslyfolks 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the box on top of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:
Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
And in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" it says:
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Noroton 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On WP:POL, under "key policies", in bold, it says:
"Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles."
Also, on every edit screen, it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."
Thus, the very creation of an article which consists exclusively of unsourced assertions is a violation of WP policy. It makes no sense to assign to others the impossible task of proving that there are no sources that support the claims of an article. The article's proponents need to step up and edit the article until it passes muster.
Finally, I have no way of knowing whether anybody will ever come back to an article. If I don't tag it when I see it, it might stay that way indefinitely, and it may give others a negative view of WP. That is why we have policies and guidelines in the first place. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like the article's creator just made your objection irrelevant. The article is sourced. As for "policies and guidelines in the first place", we have tags for lack of citations, which is a better course if that's your problem with an article. Noroton 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is still relevant vis a vis your position, but as it is no longer relevant to the deletion question at issue here, I will not belabor the point. --Butseriouslyfolks
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winona Separate School District

[edit]

Article fails to assert notability or cite any reliable sources. Butseriouslyfolks 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the box on top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:
Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
And in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" it says:
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. Noroton 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On WP:POL, under "key policies", in bold, it says:
"Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles."
Also, on every edit screen, it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."
Thus, the very creation of an article which consists exclusively of unsourced assertions is a violation of WP policy. It makes no sense to assign to others the impossible task of proving that there are no sources that support the claims of an article. The article's proponents need to step up and edit the article until it passes muster.
Finally, I have no way of knowing whether anybody will ever come back to an article. If I don't tag it when I see it, it might stay that way indefinitely, and it may give others a negative view of WP. That is why we have policies and guidelines in the first place. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your objection has been made irrelevant by the creator who added footnotes. Noroton 03:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is still relevant vis a vis your position, which is what I was responding to, but as it is no longer relevant to the deletion question at issue here, I will not belabor the point. --Butseriouslyfolks
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:52Z

Canton Public School District (Mississippi)

[edit]
Canton Public School District (Mississippi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails to assert any notability or cite any reliable sources. Butseriouslyfolks 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the box on top of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:
Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
And in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" it says:
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Noroton 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On WP:POL, under "key policies", in bold, it says:
"Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles."
Also, on every edit screen, it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."
Thus, the very creation of an article which consists exclusively of unsourced assertions is a violation of WP policy. It makes no sense to assign to others the impossible task of proving that there are no sources that support the claims of an article. The article's proponents need to step up and edit the article until it passes muster.
Finally, I have no way of knowing whether anybody will ever come back to an article. A day or two plus 5 days at AfD should be plenty of time. It can always be created in proper form later. On the other hand, if I don't tag it when I see it, it might stay that way indefinitely, and it may give others a negative view of WP. That is why we have policies and guidelines in the first place. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are footnotes now. So much for that objection. Noroton 03:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is still relevant vis a vis your position, which is what I was responding to, but as it is no longer relevant to the deletion question at issue here, I will not belabor the point. --Butseriouslyfolks
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:52Z

Grant Boyce

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

Apparent vanity Lenoxus 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Bubba hotep 10:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zach isoda

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

Come on, does Sports Illustrated have voting for the number 1 athlte in Palatine (where?)? 6th grade? Hoax, surely. Emeraude 10:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Form of government. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 18:28Z

Political taxonomy

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

Made-up term that does not appear to be in wide use. 1400-ish Google Hits, most of which are obscure blog posts or Wikipedia copies. No sources or references in article. Lankiveil 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, looking now, I'd say redirect/merge with the "other empirical and conceptual problems" section of form of government. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I merged the info to form of government. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Smmurphy. Looks like a "political taxonomy" is just a method of classification of forms of government. The source in the article (which you can see at Amazon) suggests that coming up with these classifications is or was a sub-field of political science. If someone wants to pad out the article in the future, the redirect can of course be undone. Pan Dan 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Bucketsofg 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of billionaires (2005)

[edit]
List of billionaires (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of billionaires (2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of billionaires (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of billionaires (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of billionaires (2007) 100-946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of billionaires (2007) 101-946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This (and related List of billionaires articles) appears to me to be a copyright violation of the Forbes magazine article. This is not publicly-available data but, rather, data that Forbes reporters compile. While it would be fair use to mention in individual BIO articles that a person is on the list, or to note the first few names on the list, to simply copy the entire list and add wikification strikes me as problematic. There's a reason you don't see AP simply reprint the list when it comes out in Forbes and why there isn't a Wikipedia page of the US News & World Report list of top colleges and law schools. TedFrank 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Copyvio. MER-C 10:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Facts aren't copyrightable, but lists such as this, where it took work to compile, may be (and is). --Ali'i 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: "This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are." -United States Supreme Court in the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). I believe Forbes has copyrighted these lists, and we are infringing upon their rights. --Ali'i 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the Supreme Court in Feist went on to hold that an alphabetized white pages phone book was not a copyrightable compilation of facts, because neither the selection nor the arrangement of those facts were creative, and copyright does not protect the labor involved in making anything. A factual list of billionaires, arranged by the amount they are worth, is similarly not copyrightable. Forbes would have had to inject some creative decisionmaking into the list for it to qualify for copyright, i.e., "Forbes' list of billionaires ranked by coolness." Contrast also with the ultimately subjective (and therefore creative) editorial judgment involved in making the U.S. News & World Report school rankings: what factors to consider, how to weigh them, what statistics to include in the tables, etc. Postdlf 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, not copyvio. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regardless of Copyvio, Wikipedia is not meant to be merely repeating primary sources. Nuttah68 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should only have one article mentionning the list of billionnaires if one is necessary.--JForget 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Reliable source of info. Effer 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep A list is not creative writing, but fruit of research which can be reprinted. In fact, the Associated Press does reprint it ([33], [34]), MSN reprinted it ([35]. Yahoo!reprinted it ([36]). A {{copyvio}} should be added instead so it may be research by the appropriate wikipedia users and not by us guessing if it is or not a copyright violation. --FateClub 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies -- I raised the possible copyvio issue, and I was told an AfD was the way to go. Now I know better to use a tag. -- TedFrank 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, however, the objection was the speedy deletion, copyvio was certainly not the issue "declined speedy... not copyvio, forbes is the source". This AfD is about the usefulness of this article, regardless of copyvio, which certainly does not apply to this article since it does not violate copyrights. --FateClub 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fact is not copyright, you are correct. Researching multiple facts and then collating them into a list based on a set of user defined criteria is Original Research and Copyright {eg maps are based on fact but the work in collating them makes them subject to copyright). As such Wikipedia should not be reproducing copyrighted original research under both WP:COPYVIO and WP:ATT. Nuttah68 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same opinion than FateClub above. TCY 14:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Relevant and not copyrighted. --Trigor 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a copyvio. - PoliticalJunkie 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - i think a really good summary of each year's list would be useful, but as they exist, they are litte more than copy/paste jobs.--emerson7 | Talk 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current (2007) one - neither facts nor a mere aggregation of facts without any creative expression are copyrightable (but do keep in mind that IANAL), and the current one is without doubt encyclopaedic and deserving of inclusion. I have no opinion on whether the other ones should be kept or not, although I think that if they are deleted, it should be based on a lack of encyclopaedic value rather than a perceived copyright violation. -- Schneelocke 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the deletion forces in Wikipedia are out of control, in years to come this is a great resource
  • Keep but modify - useful information, but add labor to existing list product by organizing according to different factors: e.g. by nation or state; industry, such as brewing/sprits, import/export, real property, etc.; or, with a bit more research, some other stimulating element, such as, perhaps, whether money was inherited, or, in the case where it belongs to, e.g., members of royalty, some sort of political classification. James Seneca 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with weak delete of List of billionaires (2007) 101-946 The top 100 are good, but need context, but with 101-946... it gets a little too copy-paste-ish, trivial, and long. Danski14 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC), changed my mind, perhaps it could be merged if it does not become too long. I thought the others were TOP 100s for some reason, not complete lists. Danski14 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Very useful information, just needs to be worked on.--Joebengo 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete all. I understand it is very useful information, I like it a lot myself. But it does not belong to Wikipedia. Here are my points:
  1. Did you ever wonder how Forbes get this list? They hire experts. Experts estimate people's wealth. Then Forbes averages up the estimates in an undisclosed way. What does it tell?
    1. This is not facts. Facts, in general, are not available on this matter. These are merely estimates. They are probably pretty accurate on people whose wealth is mostly in US stock market or those who have to file statements and live in developed democratic countries. What if a billionaire owns an undisclosed share of a private company? How much is that private company worth? How big is the billionaire's share of the company? 2%? 79%? You have already got two unknowns. How do you come up with an estimate? What if a billionaire lives in a corrupted country? All bets are off. You hire different experts, you get different estimates.
    2. Wealth of many in the list is pretty volatile. It depends on current oil and stock prices, currency exchange rates. This is another reason why results of this research (and, of course, this is not a scientific one) are not reproducible.
    3. I do NOT understand why people assume this is not a copyright violation. Forbes pay the experts. I have no doubt Forbes have the legal rights to the results. Hire your own experts and feel free to share your results with the world for nothing.
  2. The fact that MSN or APN have reprinted the list is NOT an indicator that you can too. They all pay to many sources for the rights to use their information. You do not know about their contracts with Forbes, do you?
  3. Finally, many of us, myself included, like it. So, what is the problem to look it up at MSN? Kulikovsky 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Everything in wikipedia is a result of the research of experts, here at wikipedia we do not create knowledge, we just put it together.
    1. No argument here
    2. Facts or estimates may be used here, and are very often used, if they are sourced.
    3. Because lists are not copyrightable because they are not creative writing (such as songs, scripts), and on the other hand you may say "Forbes said this about this person". Just imagine copyrighting "humans have 23 pairs of cromosomes" just because it took some research to come up with that figure. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, everything must have been made public prior to be posted on wikipedia.
  2. Good point, but it was in response to the nominator's remark.
  3. In that case why bother with any article, since everything in wikipedia may be found elsewhere.
Cheers, --FateClub 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as copyright violation. Forbes spent the money and time to come up with their estimates of people's wealth. This is not something like sports statistics that anyone can easily compile by themselves. TJ Spyke 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the credits of the information presented is mentioned correctly there should be no problem... the acknowledgement is in itself adequate compensation since it is a free advertisement in itself that would rake in added revenues to the original publisher ! I personally feel copyright is so much bunk ! Is anyone holding a copyright on the Bible, Koran,Gita,Gurugranth saheb etc? or the laws of physics mathematics etc? Copyright is a concept totally contrary to the "Wikipedia philosophy" which is a open free information forum..... also a country like INDIA would be down in the dumps if we did not have free access to information in science & technology espically software !!

-Samir Pradhan-

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Trice

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

NN author. Fails WP:BIO, as listed win is not in a notable competition. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any sources on him or on his writings, which is what we'd need to write a verified article with this title. Article currently is unattributed. BTW it appears his wife is more notable than him (not to say there's enough to write an article on her either). Pan Dan 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:53Z

Return of mahdi and iran

[edit]
Return of mahdi and iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is original research, it is written as an essay and it's proselytizing. Lampman 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:54Z

Lego Star Wars II (DS version)

[edit]
Lego Star Wars II (DS version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Contested prod. MER-C 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created it and I'm only a 9 year old kid. I'll just copy and paste it onto my own website then.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:54Z

Islam inside Hungarians

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

Fork of Islam in Hungary, no sources, appears POV David Underdown 11:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Veinor (talk to me) 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melband

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

Fails to assert noteability seems somewhat confused as to what it is talking about. Geni 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think it should be deleted at all. it is very public online collective of people in the music industry who discuss all manner of issues and events. the organisation is based on fact and the people in it are real. i'm confused as to what you're talking about geni. Are you bored or something? Victorpender 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are links to our actual web sites. this isn't finished yet. we are still adding to it. and wiki isn't limited to a geographical location. there are lots of articles of interest from all over the place. don't delete this. it means something to us even if not to you. i bet there's stuff you're interested in on wiki that doesn't have general appeal.Victorpender 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless proof of notability per WP:MUSIC is provided. Also, in regard to the above, it is not necessarily that primary sources are less reliable, but rather that the notability guideline for musical groups requires at least two independent (i.e., secondary) sources. -- Black Falcon 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and redirect to Think Globally, Act Locally. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Feather

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

We've had this around for a while. It's an autobiography, neutrality issues have never been addressed, claims to have coined a famous phrase are sourceable only to the subject, everyone else thinks it was David Brower. Nobody but the subject seems to be interested in this, and he's not going to fix it. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Daniel Bryant 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Downes

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

This player does not fufil the criteria for notability as he has not played in a professional league (i.e. the top four divisions of English football Bigmike 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Scott Phelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stephen Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Darren Dennehy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shaun Densmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Hall (English footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ryan Harpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jamie Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lee Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scott Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Paul Kissock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jack Rodwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jose Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Emeraude 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanja Nikolić

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

A stub about someone who fainted on TV. That's it. Since when is everything on Youtube automatcally encyclopedic? Pointless. R. fiend 21:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:56Z

Agape And A Legacy

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

Personal essays don't belong here. Author feels he is entitled for it to be on wiki; I feel he should make a website of his own on a free site such as geocities or blog site such as Yahoo 360 and post his personal viewpoints there. Postcard Cathy 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Prodego talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple picking

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

This doesn't seem right in an encyclopedia. To rephrase the article: people pick apples for recreation, but also to get apples from the tree to buy. I don't think so. --Montchav 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Montchav 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't need it's own article. Betaeleven 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure about this one. Maybe we could merge it with some article on picking/harvesting?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the current article is essentially an unreferenced stub, but I imagine that there is room for expansion, and referencing available. For example, a quick google search without much thought or effort produced this article from the Chicago sun-Times. It may be a fluff piece, but it does represent a reliable source, and the focus of the article is on apple-picking as recreation. I've added the reference into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 16:45, March 14, 2007 (UTC)
Comment - and with a bit more looking, I've added a Slate article. -- Whpq 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 03:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise ship dance host

[edit]
Cruise ship dance host (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A few things: Firstly, do these guys actually call themselves "Cruise Ship Dance Host"s? Secondly, how notable are they? Thirdly, how do I become a Cruise ship dance host? Fourthly, are Wikipedia AFD discussions the place to ask about finding a new glamourous job? Montchav 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:56Z

DAMACHLY diagram

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

orginal research Shoessss 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Duguid

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

Borderline notability. An MSN (and not Google, as it is very misleading) websearch suggests there are a few James Duguids out there, none of whom are that notable. If the AFD fails, there needs to be a rewrite of this article - it seems written by a fan or this dude Montchav 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good luck sorting through this mess, it seems like most of the comments were added by the same anonymous user who vandalized my user page today. Betaeleven 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my friend Liam, who are regular riders, just noticed that the James Duguid page was going to be deleted. We were checking to see if Duguid has a website we could look at for his events or some more pictures of his riding. This page is far better than other riders pages like Steve Peat [steve peat] and his isn't being deleted. (Please don't deleted that as well, because Peat is a legend) --Thank Mike Balwik and Laim Dobson

  • Comment- I'm unsure about this one. Maybe we could merge it with some article on freeride as the section is quite smallh i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the current article is essentially an unreferenced stub, but I imagine that there is room for expansion, and referencing available. For example, a quick google search without much thought or effort produced [38] from an online large cycling forum. It may be a fluff piece, but it does represent a reliable source, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 16:45, March 14, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - fair point: if it was written by this guy, then wouldnt he have more pictures and it be a bit more of a self appraisal(i.e a big up), plus I followed the links, and put this guys name into the British Google, it came back with about 6 or 7 races from the late nineties, (thats a far as records go back, come on this isn't the biggest sport, not like football) and some links are to the Pink!bike website (which is a forum for cyclists)- --kookokatchoo talk thyme 19:53, 16 March, 2007 (GTM)
  • Keep - Why should you delete a page that, has information about British Freeriders, when so few are lacking in promotion because Britain it is a little fish in the sport, compared to canada and america. This page just gives information to up and coming riders, provides motivation and information, for those who want to be active, surely thats a good thing?

I've clicked on the links seen that he's a good rider, and seen some sticker bikes on ebay, but this page i dont think is an advertisement for them. I think this page is helpful --Shultz12 talk thyme 12:50 16 March 2007 (GMT)

  • Transwiki - Seems to fail WP:BIO, as he was active in junior categories, rather than at least the highest level of amateur competition: it seems to me that the race results are irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not for advocacy or advertisement (WP:NOT), so providing motivation and support is not a valid reason for keeping a page. It may be a good thing, but out of place. This article could be transwikied to Bicycling Wiki. --Severo 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Contest of Speedy Deletion: A large community of bike riders has grown in the Brighton (England) and surrounding area. Its thanks to The Sticker Bike that using scrapped and unwanted bikes off the streets and dumped in town. It has made cycling more popular with the students and younger adults of Brighton and this promotes exercise and healthy living. It should be recognised that creating bikes with thin handlebars and in smaller sizes means that they are easy to store in flats and apartments and small rented rooms that are often quite hard to bicycles in.

The aim of the Sticker Bike is riding around having fun not to make a profit, just to provide transport for students and transport for couriers to do their jobs.

James Duguid should be recognised as a contributor to the cycling industry and as cyclist himself

Image licensing help

[edit]

Hi - I looking for some info on the licensing of the actual piccy of James on the page. I see that the creator is claimed as Claire Beaumont and it licensed for public domain. However the same picture arrived on Commons over a week ago with creation claimed as here but also another uploader and then "Franscio for Torque Magazine". Obviously correct licensing is very important here on other wikis - info at my talk page here or on Commons (same name) or on this page would be very helpful. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Torque magazine is a magazine run/sponsored by Evans Cycles UK LTD, Claire Beaumont works for this company, pictures taken on behalf of the company are freely licensed to other company employees. If you would like to address the company on this matter please email either [email protected] or [email protected] you can visit the website www.evanscycles.com and then find the contact section and send a letter or email about Torque magazine. Hope this is helpful -- --Cookies80 talk thyme 11:52, 16 March, 2007 (UTC)

Redirected from Discussion - --kookokatchoo talk thyme 19:53, 16 March, 2007 (GTM)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:57Z

John Jay Phelps

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

criterion A7 (Unremarkable people or groups) As several people have edited the page, and it has been in existance for a year and a half, give them time to reply Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A major early railroad baron and historical figure. Using Google hits is not only improper in general, but an extremely poor measure of notability for an individual who died over 100 years before the internet was invented. The several dozen mentions in the New York Times, including a sizable obituary, are far better measures of genuine notability. Alansohn 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I think that this needs adding to the artcle. I arrived at the page from making John Phelps a disambiguation page and I could not write a one liner description, as I had for the other John Phelps, using the Wikipedia article as a source. It is metioned that he was a director of a railroad, but unless one knows who he is and reads between the lines, the Wikipedia article does not inform the reader that he was a "railroad baron" and a very very wealthy man. (I got the wealth snippet from an article thrown up by the Google search suggested by PoliticalJunkie) --Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn AlfPhotoman 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep John Jay Phelps' place in history includes mention alongside many other prominent men of the time, including Dodge and Morgan. btphelps 20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovic Quistin

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. Delete. Springnuts 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has played at professional level with Tamworth in Nationwide Conference. Player is full time not part time. Also had trials with Football League clubs. This is the second time Springnuts has nominated this article for deletion, can someone sort this user out please, I think he needs help on here. Thanks in advance.Jonesy702 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails notability--Sefringle 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Player has not played in a full professional league (Conference is not a full professional league), fails to meet WP:BIO. Ytny (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment unfortunately you are right, it's only 95% professional. It's distinctly possible that the only remaining non 100% full-time clubs will be relegated this season, so next year the Conference National could well meet the criteria. - fchd 06:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIO does say, however, "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." - fchd 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BIO and precedent. HornetMike 08:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As per Richard's comment above, potentially the Conference could be fully professional next season, so players playing in it would then meet WP:BIO, but presumably that would only cover players who play in the Conference from next season.....? And then if a non-fully pro team were to get promoted into it the following year we'd then have to go back to not accepting Conference players as the league would no longer be fully pro.....? Aaaarrrgggghhhh!!!! ChrisTheDude 08:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the key isn't whether the Conference isn't fully professional, but whether it's always fully professional. Clubs from League 2 and up have stricter standards for facilities and organization, and professionalism is a requirement. Non-League clubs don't have to be professional, and as long as that's the case, it's de facto, not fully, professional. From a practical point of view, there's little non-trivial media coverage of Conference clubs and players other than in local and community papers, so it's harder to create articles with multiple reliable sources. And for the vast majority of players who haven't made it with League clubs, the Conference is where careers go to die, since there's much less upward mobility. So I think it makes sense to draw the line between League 2 and Conference. --Ytny (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Conference is not a fully-professional league, not yet at any rate. Fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm 10:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Angelo 12:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm against deleting reasonable articles on minor technicalities. This guy is as close to meeting the noteability guideline as it is possible to get without meeting the criteria. The article is however better than many of those for higher-class footballers, and so I'm voting to keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia after all. aLii 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sure, the article is better than those of many top flight footballers, but that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it? :) I for one don't think it's a minor technicality - fully professional or not, the conference is part of a semi-pro setup. We're talking about a player who couldn't pass a trial at a non-Premiership club. We have to draw the line somewhere, and given that the professionalism of Conference clubs can change from season to season, I think drawing a line between League and Non-League is perfectly reasonable. If this player is really worthy of our attention, then he'll sign with a bigger club or help his club get promoted. We can always create an article when that happens. To me, that's a bigger benefit of a non-paper encyclopedia. Ytny (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my heart is with aLii, but my head is with Ytny. There has to be a line somewhere and he falls below the accepted level. Daemonic Kangaroo 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a big failure to meet WP:BIO; not only has he not played league football but he has hardly played at Conference level. If he is let in we may as well bin the standard. TerriersFan 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot believe that all you people want this deleted, it is full of useful information, which is hard to get hold of on the internet alone, it has more information than most of the players in the higher divisions, dont you people have nothing better to do than go around deleting off peoples hard work, its a joke it really is Stew jones 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 List of educational institutes in Lucknow. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:58Z

Seth M.R.Jaipuria School, Lucknow

[edit]
Seth M.R.Jaipuria School, Lucknow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability, also reads like advertisement Guroadrunner 10:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:58Z

Vocabulary cartoons

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

Purely advice written in first person, more of a blog rather than encyclopedic. Nenyedi 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local history glossary

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

This 80KB article received a prod tag on 11 March when it was named Local History Dictionary as it appears to fail WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. The Primary editor of the page User:Rosser1954 removed the prod tag and renamed the article Local history glossary. Rosser1954 has done alot of very good work on this article that provides much valuable information, except that he has picked the wrong wiki for it to live on. The article has been transwikied to wikibooks:Scottish Rural Life, History Dictionary which would seem to be a much more appropriate home for this body of work. Jeepday 13:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite right - someone changed the title from Dictionary to glossary a long time back - that's why I continued working on it. The additional changes from Dictionary to Glossary were in the intro part. I know enough about how Wiki works to realise that hiding such changes are totallly pointless and I resent the various implications - with due cause.

172.215.156.171 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosser 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wiki have such a large number of Glossaries if they are not allowed? Search for Glossary and check out the list. Why was I 'allowed' to do so much work before being told that it was going to be deleted?

Jeep is trying to be of some help with the Wikibook idea, but this article isn't a book. It is not about Scotland. It is a resource for Local Historians the World over - look how many of the items have no Wiki link.

Rosser 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in some form - While some of the terms are of wider relevance, the context is very largely Scots local history. This should be reflected in the title, perhaps 'Glossary of Scottish Local History'. This is potentially a useful resource for those of us engaged in English local history and find ourselves crossing the border into a country with a different legal system and different terminology, some of which is unfamiliar. Peterkingiron 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you lik from an article to a wikibook? Does the glossary have a function if you send it to Alaska? Rosser 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Prodego talk 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filsinger Games

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

Contested prod. Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. Also no independent sources, so fails WP:A One Night In Hackney303 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Worcester, New York. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:59Z

Worcester Central School

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

Delete - The speedy delete of this article was rejected merely because it was a high school, however, it shows no notability. Betaeleven 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Scott

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

Delete - Was declined a speedy delete, because it was notable, yet I feel to see how. Betaeleven 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Deor 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 wasSpeedy delete as blatant advertising. Gwernol 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMW Unlimited

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

This appears to be cut and pasted from an advertisement for the company. It is not formatted correctly and contains very little information. Rbraunwa 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - clearly inappropriate nomination of a notable game by a user "just experimenting with the deletion process" Gwernol 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War

[edit]

Just a vanity article about any random video game. --Brokendownhondaaccord 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquilles Delle Vigne

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:02Z

Red lion militia

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

This article is almost certainly a hoax, as I presumed when I first read it a minute after it got created. Google and Yahoo! both only return 2 unrelated search results and no references or sources are given. Poeloq 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 on the balance of arguments presented. While it is conceivable that this individual is notable per our definition of notability, no compelling evidence was provided to support that, and blatant conflict of interest plus the involvement of numerous sockpuppets make it clear that even if the subject were notable, this is not the article we would have. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Barry Ley

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

Possibly self-published, autobiographical, improper tone, non-notable living person, wild claims with unverifiable links. Unreliable sources and many failed verification. Loudenvier 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent work Well written. Covering a serious, notable living person. The tone is studious and the claims thoroughly backed up in great detail. The links all check out, the sources are reliable and all of them pass verification. Well done DrParkes. I know that they have blocked you, but add me to your list of supporters. We will try to defend you while they won´t let you speak for yourself. Kentkent is right, you should try and get onto another computer and defy their bullying. Jamesthorburn 08:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. We are fighting alosing battle with the Loudenvier/Gelston/Nate/FlowWTG sockpuppet. (Or socketpuppet as they like to call it. They vandalise every valid contribution, even to a talk page! Kbenton 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caution This AfD is being attacked by sockpuppets Loudenvier, Nate, FlowWTG, and Gelston. It is my firm belief that they are all sockpuppets and the same person. It might be a good idea if administrators were to take a closer look at those users. They (he) have been consistently disrupting the work of DrParkes aparantly because he dared to disagree with their (his) Judo based view of the origins of BJJ. They (he) managed to get DrParkes banned by stealthy misuse of the system. Now, during his absence, they (he) are attacking anyone who disagrees with them (him). They are even vandalising and disrupting this AfD nominiation. They consistently vandalise anything that does not fit their points of view. Regards, Jamesthorburn 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof that us four are sockpuppets? Or is it because we voted rgued for delete and don't agree with you? Look at my IP Address. You'll see its from Iraq. Look at Loudenvier's, I'm sure it hails from Brazil. Look at Flows, good chance its from Ohio. Your accusations of sockpuppetry are attacks on the creditability of others, and do not keep with the spirit of WP:Civility. You think Barry Ley deserves an article. We disagree. We aren't one in the same. Have a nice day. Gelston 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sockpuppet, as I am sure you are aware, programs like HideMyIp will effectively change your IP address for you. But I'm sure I don't have to tell you that. Kbenton 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, for a start the edit histories on the talk pages, the timing of edits and not least activity outside this (and related articles)--Nate 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they are on to you, LOUNDENVIER/NATE/FLOWWTG/GELSTON. What are you going to do if you get caught out and banned? Surely by now you must realise you have gone too far. Decent people will not just stand around and let good work be undone. Sorry, but it had to end sometime. Kbenton 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this "No you are!!" line of thought: Nate, Gelston, and Loudenvier have been on here and editing for a long time in separate areas of wikipedia. All of you, on the other hand, joined within the same few days, edit exactly the same articles, speak exactly the same way, even down to CAPITALIZING NAMES. It's quite a tell. I don't think you're even taking this seriously anymore - please, just stop. FlowWTG 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say FlowWTG, or should I say Nate? I'm sure you would like us all to go away. What a great world if everyone who did not share our point of view would just go away. There are some notable historic characters who would have agreed with that sentiment. Stalin, Mao tse tung and Hitler to name but a few. But look what happens when people stop trying to defy tyranny and sacrifice free speech. No. I think it best for humankind in general if we and everyone else who believes in the banned DrParkes keeps fighting to clear his name. We can not, must not allow the insidious hijacking of this noble institution to continue. Jamesthorburn 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete Notability is proved beyond all doubt. Sources impeccable and always present when neccessary. Merging with the BLAGGERS article might be a good idea, if the Judo gang had not already hounded it off the project. Jamesthorburn 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gelston, or anyone else for that matter. Do you really think that it is fair to remove other people's opinions from this discussion page? Clearly it is not. Try to act fairly please.
Stop posting gibberish on the AfD page, and follow the format instead of creating thousands of little subtopics everywhere. If you have a comment thats brand new, its generally to be posted on the bottom instead of randomly inside the project page.Gelston 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You stop posting gibberish. Also could you please refrain from changing other people´s input. That way we all get to have our say. A man´s work is at stake here. If he is not allowed to speak for himself, then at least all points of view should be heard. I think that if you examine your conscience, you will see that it is the fairest way. Kbenton 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This article seems to be attracting a lot of attention. For my part, the links provide sound verification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Ley seems to someone who stirs up a lot of passion, one way or the other, in several of the editors at least. And Google´s one and a half million listed pages about him certainlty suggest sufficient notability.

comment- not really, came across it as while looking the contributions of an unhelpful editor on another article. I generally try to keep any one I come across in a good state, wikify an add citation requests but these were repeatedly removed or bad sources added. Also if you google "Barry Ley", including the quotes it give 560, this looks for the exact phrase, I did a UK only search around 167 are based here if he is based in the UK these are the most likely to be relevant & getting few & far between esp as unless he's a member of "PLYMOUTH & DISTRICT CONSUMER GROUP" the first few are not about him.
Also I notice the only pages you have edited are the same as the banned User:DrParkes any relation?--Nate 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAs far as I can see, DrParkes is the victim of the bias and vandalism of a small clique of Judo fans. No relation, but as you guys have teamed up to get him banned while you sabotage his work, he needs all the support he can get. Kentkent 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I search for "Felipe Machado" I receive 118.000 google hits. Should I start my autobiography on wikipedia? "Felipe Rocha" returns 30.600 hist. Loudenvier, my nickname, and used everywhere only by me, returns 911 hits. I think my nickname is more notable than Barry Ley in general. I would never write about Loudenvier on wikipedia though. Loudenvier 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Over a million hits for "Barry Ley" His book did indeed make it to No 1 on Amazon bestseller list albeit only for a short time and, as pointed out by another editor, about one and a half millionth place on the all time list. Out of nearly 100 million titles on their inventory since Amazon's inception. It seems positively vindictive that you should decry his work so, in the full knowledge that you have had him banned from replying. Are you afraid he will keep coming up with more proof for his claims, just as he was doing right up until the moment you managed to get him cut off?

I say good luck to him. I hope others will rally round this poor victim of malevolant vandalism. Keep your chin up DrParkes. There are plenty of us cheering for you. Kentkent 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just took Londenier's idea another way, searched for my exact name (in just the UK) and came up with 89 hits of which 4 involved me & 2 were from the same site so optimistically that 0.5% extrapolated that means about 25 of the exact matches for Barry lee are about him...--Nate 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't want to find it, do you? No wonder if you spell it wrong NATE. It is Barry LEY. Jamesthorburn 08:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a noteworthy subject. And it is unfair foreveryone EXCEPT DrParkes to have their say. There are plenty of sources citations and proof. More than any other article on Wikipedia it seems. The book is a bestseller and there are a huge number of other books with their own articles. Ley is a fascinating subject, well covered by the media. Unfortunately, DrParkes has committed the sin of telling the world about the true origins of BJJ in other articles. He obviously did not realise the political power of the Judo set in this organisation. Preech Jigoro Kano, or hold your tongue! Kentkent 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Ley Guard is definitely now an accepted part of the sport. I agree with kentkent that we should keep this article. If you have long legs, the Ley Guard is a safe way to defend while setting up the triangle. While it looks precarious, it is in fact quite stable as long as you grip your ankle tightly. As this technique is now accepted into the mainstream, I think that its inventor deserves to stay on Wikipedia. And I also agree with kentkent that DrParkes does seem to be getting victimised for daring to challange the judo propaganda inherent in the articles on BJJ. Jamesthorburn 08:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Socketpuppets If you want to persist in your ridiculous accusations, at least use the correct verbiage. I think you mean sockpuppet. You ought to know, you are one (or several, depending on which way you look at it) Kbenton 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to closing admin. I have no opinion on this article and, in fact, have not even looked at it. However, of all the users who have edited this discussion, 2 have less than 50 edits (all of which are in this AFD or the Barry Ley article) and were created just a short while ago. These two users also happen to be the most ... I believe "obnoxious" is the most descriptive term. They are Kbenton (see edit history) and Jamesthorburn (see edit history). Despite having edited the article's talk page and this AFD multiple times, they seem to do so in rotation: first one edits for an hour, then the other, and so on. As "obvious, disruptive sock puppet(s)", I believe a block without checkuser would be appropriate, per WP:RCU, or some other form of warning/block. -- Black Falcon 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another face of the anti DrParkes "socket puppet" You are the obvious disruptive sockpuppet. You will try anything to keep DrParkes down. Well we will fight til the last to defend him. It is a sad day for Wikipedia, and indeed mankind in general when free speech is crushed in this awful manner. 80.58.205.35 06:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon you have met your match. From now on I will be keeping a close eye on you. Any more sockpuppeteering and/or vandalism will be dealt with as and when it arises. I am happy to announce to the world that I too am here to defend the downtrodden DrParkes. Truth must always confront lies. In the words of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," Steely eyed eagle hawk 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:03Z

Simon Williams (Gangster)

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

Possibly non-notable and not very well verified article on a criminal. Could possibly be a hoax or an attack page. I tagged it for prod but that was contested by the article's author without discussion or addition. When I originally prodded, I couldn't find any sources and the link in the article did not show anything. MLA 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:03Z

Metadigm

[edit]
Metadigm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Metadigm sq flat.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Nonnotable tech company, no independent coverage. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The 'keep' voters' reasons were just google searches and WP:ILIKEIT, but the 'delete' voters didn't give a good reason either. Veinor (talk to me) 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slime Volleyball

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

Nonnotable browser game. NawlinWiki 16:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, of the Google search result hits are links to a page where the game can be played. Luke! 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must Keep I have used this article a lot when playing the game and it has been very helpful it could be merged with a larger Slime Games page so there could be more information about all the slime games.
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Luke! 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a wiki exists for it, does not mean that it should be included on Wikipedia. Luke! 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is subjective without available reliable sources to verify this claim. Luke! 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, high subjective claim that is not based on any reputably published source - that I could find. Luke! 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin City 3: Hell and Back

[edit]
Sin City 3: Hell and Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article violates WP:NOT: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". The subject matter of this article is not verifiable in any way, IMDB is not even close to a reliable source. This film is not in production, and probably will not be made for several years, if it is made at all. Sin City 2 itself will probably not be filmed until The Spirit is finished, which is some way off yet [40]. Do we really need an article on a film that has not been green-lit, and is a hypothetical sequel to a film that more than likely will not be released until 2009? Unless anyone can provide a single veriable source that this film is being made, it should be deleted. Rje 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires (3rd nomination)

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

This article has been proposed for deletion twice previously, in January 2006 and April 2006. However, since then, the article has not become more encyclopedic, and as the edit history shows, is prone to POV-pushing. Moreover, I believe this to be a fundamental flaw in the article itself, not just the POV-pushers -- in that, while the article acknowledges difficulty in comparing empires from different ages and in calculating their sizes and populations, it nevertheless tries to do what it acknowledges to be difficult if not impossible. Well, it is impossible to do so objectively, as I think has been demonstrated. Given WP:NPOV as an overall overriding principle, delete (since there is no way for this article to be NPOV). --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If Editors have a problem with pushing their POV on the content, that's their problem, not this subject. This subject is still reasonable for an encyclopedia, since people do care about the size of empires. FrozenPurpleCube 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the entire problem is that people do care -- but that there is no one, no one who can, with any kind of accuracy or NPOVness, really come up with a proper list of the largest empires and sort them. (Now, it might be possible to do a list of large empires without regard for which one is largest, but this article is not set out to do that, due to its title.) --Nlu (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see this problem as an objection to the article's existence, just a component of its content. I agree, that is a problem. It won't be easy. So far, though, you haven't established a problem with the subject itself. Just one with the editors. That's not a reason to delete. That's a reason to go through Dispute resolution. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim that the article is NPOV and these things are immeasurable should be backed up with actual evidence. Can you find references which support this claim? If not then your point of view is your own and is not actually NPOV. Why not find sources to back up your view and include them in the article. --Quirex 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an article cannot be NPOV it must be deleted. As of now the article is very POV. There has been no indication of a problem with any editors so your argument is an example of a straw man [41]. Agha Nader 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Except, this article can be NPOV, representing the historical perspective accepted by historians and other informed researchers. If those people disagree, cover the disagreement. NPOV does not say "delete anything which people can't agree completely about", it says: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Is there some reason this page can't include whatever disagreements are troubling this page? Besides, I don't see how there can be POV concerns without there being disputes over content. Are you saying there is no argument over the content and thus there is no POV problem? If so, then this nomination is groundless. FrozenPurpleCube 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that there is no way that the article can be NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an assertion, but with no substance to back it up. Really, try to articulate the problem. What dispute is there to the contents of this article? What positions have been expressed? Why can't the editors involved reach a consensus? What steps have been taken to resolve the content dispute? You claim there is an intractable problem as to NPOV, but you've completely failed to show what the problem is, or why it warrants deletion instead of some other action. AfD is not for deletion of articles because people disagree over the content of an article on an otherwise valid subject. I honestly don't even see how you can claim the page isn't encyclopedic, let alone such a heinous violation of NPOV. FrozenPurpleCube 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is subject to serious problems because the definition of the term empire itself is subject to POV interpretation. However susceptible the article is to POV edits, that alone is not a criterion for deletion. The majority of the article is well-written and well-sourced and clearly passes inclusion standards. The proper way to handle POV editing is through diligent maintenance of the article and resolving potential disputes on the talk page - or if disputes get out of hand, RfC or even some kind of arbitration in severe cases - but certainly jettisoning the article is not the cure. Arkyan 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is fine. Lord of Light 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing in the nomination points out what the specific POV problem is. Just because something might be difficult to describe or compare does not mean it presents a POV problem. Several of the categories of comparison are quite objectively set out and capable of meeting all content policies. Other sections that might not be can be removed from the article, but do not merit deletion of the whole article. Whether or not a particular "empire" is an empire or ought to be on the list is a content issue and does not detract from the fact that the list is larged composed of entities that qualify as empires. I see no problems with the article in its present form. Agent 86 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem inherent is that for historical empires prior to the 19th century, there is almost no reliable way to calculate their physical or population sizes. Therefore, estimates are required, and the estimates are often speculation, thus leading to multiple "reasonable" intepretations, each of which is POV and which cannot be reconciled in an NPOV manner. --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is an easy reconciliation. Take any views that are reasonably accepted, or that have been reasonably accepted, within the academic community relating to this subject, and include all of them. If there are disputes, then say: While Professor Stuffy-pants of Humbug University says "blah-blah-blah", the view of Professor Baldy-head of Pretense College disagrees and offers "blabbity-blah-blah" instead. Now Professor Crackbrain of Dunder Tech's view of "blabity-dinosaurs-ufos-blah" might not be as easily included, but that's another question entirely. Otherwise we might as well use your argument to delete almost any article on history. Certainly might require a purge of maps, population estimates and whatnot. The question of NPOV is that Wikipedia not violate it, not that other people not have their own POV. Their interpretations and speculation are their own business, and including them is question of content dispute, not a question of the article's subject. FrozenPurpleCube 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the problem with that argument is that specifically, this article is a list that includes rankings, and without such rankings, it's not a list any more and would be useless anyway. The Mongol Empire, for example, will necessarily have to include some indication of how large that empire was, but it becomes problematic when this list is forced to compare the size of the Mongol Empire to other empires. It can't be done in an NPOV manner. --Nlu (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why not? If there can't be any possibly agreement as to the size of the Mongol empire, exactly why has every world history book I've ever seen included a map with its territory on it? You can quibble over precision if you want, I'm sure there's a lot of concerns regarding accuracy but that's a content problem, not a subject one. FrozenPurpleCube 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 2 references for this article which are about the article itself. They are secondary sources, they aggregate data from various sources and produce lists of empires and their sizes. This article cites these 2 references. Thus this article is surprisingly attributable. And the topic is obviously notable enough as it has 2 reliable references about itself. As far as I can tell this article simply takes the POV of the referenced work. If a POV does not have sources or references it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Quirex 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are satisfactory and reliable references for the page. However, the GDP comparisons in 1990 US$ perhaps need to have a bit more information at the beginning of the section, in such a way that it states that the GDP given (I assume) is for each empire when it had its largest GDP (and then largest % world GDP in the next part of the section) i.e. that it was the total GDP of the empire in the year year stated, which was the largest (annual) GDP the particular empire had out of all of its years of existence. I would suggest somehow making the article more 'reader friendly', perhaps using tables instead of lists, and (where possible) combining multiple lists into a single table. A final point, though not directly related to the article, is that the link to the "American_Empire" of 1944/1945, doesn't actually state any information about such an empire in those years, and is a debatable empire to include in the lists. Definitely keep the article on grounds of sound knowledge and fulfilling suitable reference criteria, it just requires a small bit of editing. Barno_uk 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • it doesn't require just "a small bit of editing." --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you show that your POV is actually supported by Reliable Secondary sources? --Quirex
        • My POV is that the article is unencyclopedic, not that any particular version of the page is more reliable than any other. I don't know how I'm going to find secondary sources to support that. --Nlu (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every Wikipedia article is prone to POV-pushing. That is not a criteria for deletion. How is this article unencyclopedic? Jagged 85 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless there is a more complete list of largest empire elsewhere, this one should definitely stay. To replace something with nothing is a bad idea. Please challenge the order, not the entire deletion of an article. Benjwong 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem, as I pointed out, is that every single challenge is going to be itself POV, since, for example, there is no way to prove the size of the Mongol Empire one way or the other, but the list structure of the article forces there to be one singular size listed for it. (And if that is made a fuzzy size, then the article suddenly loses its purpose, as it can no longer be a sorted list.) --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who that voted "keep" is in favor of having an article called "List of the Best Empires". Both are subjective and based on POV. Most historians will tell you there is no way of knowing the size of Darius's empire or that of other ancient kings. All this article can do is speculate. Agha Nader 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

*Keep-Every article is prone to POV pushing. What I see on this article is facts based on numbers. Gelston 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Therein lies the problem; the article contains opinions that masquerade as facts based on numbers, and it's impossible to NPOV-ize it due to the structure of the article. --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding how you say its impossible given the structure of the article. I did notice things such as quoting figures on the American Empire from 1945 or so, but thats not so much of a big deal. It seems to be comparing Empires based on its stats at their respective peaks. If you feel that some sizes are not able to be proven, and asterick can be placed next to it and notes about it can be made. Gelston 06:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is no different than using weasel words to mask POV. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cite what you mean. You have yet to point out anything, other than saying the entire article is POV, which I, and most of the other people arguing for keep also seem to disagree with you about. The burden of proof is on you it seems. Gelston 07:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out that, in particular, the size of Mongol Empire is problematic, and it's not the only one. Using an * doesn't solve the problem, because it will still be a sorted list, and its placement in the sorted list will require the article to have at least the POV that it is of that particular size. I don't know how more "point[ing] out anything" I need to do. --Nlu (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how one can argue that the article is not becoming "more encyclopedic". Almost everything in the article is now referenced, and the policies concerning how to measure size are well defined. Both of these things were not true before.
Yes, the article acknowledges that it is difficult to compare empires, but it does not call it impossible. The article establishes a standard and goes from there. - Atarr 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in favor of not losing any info. That is the bottom line. Even if it wasn't ranked by size, there is too much research done to be wasted via a delete. Benjwong 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should not strive for "pure truth" (which is a pointless exercise doomed to fail), but rather verifiability. Was the Mongol Empire 36.6 million square kilometres or was it truly 36.59999 sq-km? It doesn't matter. To note anything other than what one or more sources state is tantamount to original research. That historians disagree on the specific numbers or that it is difficult to measure imperial size is not our concern. Our concern, rather, is to report and summarise that which has been written, irrespective of whether it is/was "truth". -- Black Falcon 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very good information which helps people with comparing empires. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see that this article is prone to the ethno-centric bias of various editors who would like their partical horse to come in first but the information is quite helpful and eventually we will truly get to the point where we are comparing apples to apples.--CltFn 11:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Survivor (TV series)#Tribal Council. Veinor (talk to me) 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Council (Survivor)

[edit]
Tribal Council (Survivor) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Second nomination for this article (previos nomination at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribal Council (Survivor) ]]. This is an essay on part of the reality show survivor. No sources and not notable outside the programme. Nuttah68 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rlevse 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankford Road, Dallas, Texas

[edit]
Frankford Road, Dallas, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable city streets in the Dallas metro area Holderca1 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • Speedy keep and relist separately. My vote is to keep the first two and delete the others. Parker Road is F.M. 544 (a numbered state highway in Texas), which I've been told is automatically notable. I don't know if I agree with the policy, but we should be consistent. -- Selket Talk 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I am a member of WP:TXSH, I agree with Parker Road, and I will delist that one and it will be moved to Farm to Market Road 544. Which other one did you say keep to? Franklin Road or Plano Parkway? --Holderca1 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except FM 544. And even at that, I'm not convinced that the farm-to-market road system is all that notable. It's essentially a secondary system of state highways. (Also, come to think of it, FM 544 in Plano is carried by 15th Street and Park Boulevard. If I remember correctly, it doesn't take on the name Parker Road until west of Plano.) (I lived in Plano many years ago, so that's how I remember these things.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except FM 544. Article about seemingly random streets that make no claim of notability. -- NORTH talk 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No references presented to show that these are in any way notable, and I doubt that one having a state number makes it "inherently notable." Edison 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - There is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about each topic. The information should be copied into an appropriate article and only broken out to its own article once enough source material is located. -- Jreferee 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. IrishGuy talk 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of German words and phrases

[edit]
List of German words and phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has been Transwikied now; Wikipedia is not a dictionary; barely-referenced, and borders on Original Research (phrases "presumed to be commonly understood by the English reader"?) Miskwito 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:08Z

GWR 7800 Class 7812 Erlestoke Manor

[edit]
GWR 7800 Class 7812 Erlestoke Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not entirely sure, but this appears to be an article about a single train engine. There is no suggestion of notability and no attribution. See also WP:NOT#DIR. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iguide

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

This page is original research. The author is using the space to complain about some cable TV software Ozzykhan 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiur times

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

This article is a blatant advertisement for a magazine that has close to 0 Google hits and virtually no recognition. The article is completely unsourced, and has many dubious claims, including the ridiculous circulation figures. Even the magazine's own website has close to no content whatsoever. Delete quickly, please. DLandTALK 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:09Z

The End of Iraq

[edit]
The End of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wholly POV, a self-proclaimed book review that is unfortunately not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Iraq and Democracy - NYC JD (interrogatories) 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:10Z

St Thomas More High School for Boys

[edit]
St Thomas More High School for Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page St Thomas More High School for Boys needs to be speedily deleted. It has been vandalized a few times, as you can see in the history page, by placing a Scandal section on the page, which was completely fictional. Because of this risk and how it may affect the status of the school on wikipedia and overall really, it needs to be speedily deleted at the wish of the school's headmaster, P.P Travis. OM, a pupil of the school User:Olz06 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - High School that is notable as a Mathematics and Computing Specialist College, only a small minority of secondary schools achieve this in Math, with a sixth form that OfSTED has described as 'Outstanding'. Vandalism, or the reported wish of the Head, are no grounds for deletion. TerriersFan 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-A page getting vandalized isn't a reason to delete it. If it were, we'd have to delete more or less the entire site. The best solution is just to watch the article and revert any vandalism.
Also: I certainly don't see where this is a candidate for speedy deletion. Which of the critiera do you think it meets? --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The headmaster should have the overall say on whether it is deleted or not! I put this article on here and I should have a right to get rid of it! He does not want this on the wikipedia website because absolutely anything bad about the school could be put on here. User:Olz06 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page has been recently vandalized with a scandal section which is fictional and somewhat offensive to the school's reputation, and therefore is at risk of more. At the wish of the school's headmaster, this page needs to be deleted, incase of further vandalism which may affect the status of St Thomas More High school. User:Olz06 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All schools get vandalised (really and virtually). This is a good stub on its way to a start. However if the head puts pressure on those who improve it, then it will get worse Victuallers 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vandalism on an article is not a reason to delete, nor is desire of the administration of a subject of an article a reason. BTW, when saying something, you need only place a bold statement once. If you feel a need to follow-up please just add whatever you want to say, or even just comment. Furthermore, as a contributor to Wikipedia, you agreed to license your contributions under the GFDL. As such, you do not possess the legal right to demand its deletion. Nor does your headmaster, who we cannot even verify wants this page deleted. Certainly, the concern that the information on this page be accurate and not the work of vandalism is a valid one, however, that concern is not limited to this article, but one across Wikipedia. The best I can suggest is that your school take responsibility to educate the students regarding not vandalizing this article, and if it is a problem, perhaps ask some employee to watch it. As long as that person takes care not to edit out material that is otherwise valid, I have no objection to that kind of action. If your school has further concerns about the content of this article, I suggest they hire an attorney who can contact Wikipedia's administration directly, not through this method, which has limited verification, but through other channels where the persons involved can be authenticated. I don't think there is any real reason to do so, but it would be the better option. FrozenPurpleCube 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do not delete article because they get vandalized, or we would delete every featured article, which get vandalized every minute in some familiar cases. Articles about historical personages may get vandalized several times a day. Put it on a watch list and revert, or semiprotect, or block the vandal account. Edison 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - High schools seem to be regarded as notable per se. This may be not be a very good article, but no worse than many others. Vandalism is no ground for deletion. In any event, the article is now semi-protected, which should keep vandals away, or at least allow them to be identified and blocked. Peterkingiron 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While in all means, the proper way is to contact our administrator, I remember there was an article about a certain woman, which had went with 5 AFD. The legal status can be contacted Community portal. If this article was originated by you, let this be a lesson to you: once it goes out to GFDL, it can't be taken back. George Leung 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Specialist Schools tag is no badge of notability in secondary schools these days, but this one looks notable regardless. EliminatorJR Talk 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-written article, amply provide with reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability. Placing an sprotect and monitoring the article will address vandalism; deletion is a rather blunt instrument to deal with vandalism, sort of a "we had to destroy the village to save it" logic. Alansohn 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. There are plenty of sources, but what they show to be notable are the people that have passed through the halls, not the school itself. Incidentally, to delete an article because of vandalism would be to give in to the vandals. As important, an article's subject has no more control over an article than any other Wikipedia editor. Unless the article invades the privacy of a nonnotable subject, the subject has no right to insist that its article be deleted. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for deletion: I would personally prefer starting a new AFD for WP:N, since I don't think it should be deleted due to "vandalism" or "false info". Allowing AFD be approved under such condition may set up precedents, allowing anyone who don't like a certain article to be deleted. Keep for now, then submit a new AFD under WP:N if needed. Personally, I think it is notable, and should be keep. George Leung 07:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The headmaster should have the overall say on whether it is deleted or not! I put this article on here and I should have a right to get rid of it! - Unfortunately under the GFDL neither the article originator nor the subject (assuming the part about the headmaster is even true, we have no way of confirming it) has the right to demand that an article be removed from WP. The article creator should have read up on what he was "signing up to" by adding content to WP, and if he didn't take the time to do so well unfortunately that's just tough luck. I see no deletion criteria which this article meets. Message to User:Olz06: If the head gives you any grief over this incident you could always point him to this page and show that you honestly tried to get the page deleted but that WP policies don't permit such an action.... ChrisTheDude 08:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school has far more content than many other school articles which have not been nominated for deletion. Notability has been demonstrated. Very few headteachers are awarded OBEs. The "Incidents" section is trivial and would be best deleted. If the current head does not like the article he is free to edit and improve the article as he pleases. Dahliarose 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a school article, this article is one of the best. Its well written, has a lot of references from a variety of different sources. They have demonstrated that the notability of the school is acceptable. I agree with Dahliarose above re: headmaster. LordHarris 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an article just kept on getting vandalized and didn't have any interested editors who would keep watch over it, I'd be in favor of deleting. Although I think all high schools are notable, I don't feel the same way about what I call "vandal magnets". This article was started on January 7 and for at least a short while so far, TerriersFan has been making a lot of edits to it (as have some others). Noroton 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good article and serves a useful purpose. Vandalism can be dealt with, just as it's dealt with for every other subject on Wikipedia. The headmaster should be pointed to Wikipedia:Attribution, which may help set his mind at ease that only attributable information can be added to the article -- anything else can be rapidly deleted. --Elonka 23:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - may I suggest that we are now approaching the snow-line? TerriersFan 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Sorry, no snowball'. Potentially controversial, especially seeing the keep-votes are from followers of Islams. We already have that complain on 300, so why would this that touch more than Persian be put to rest this easily?

Sorry, that was for Militant Islam, which i was also watching. yes, this one can easily invoke WP:SNOW. George Leung 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think the outcome is pretty conclusive, but this page deltion page should be kept for a few more days. Olz06 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Discussion about name of article to continue at Talk:Niggardly. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:18Z

Niggardly

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

This article must be deleted because it has distressingly little to do with its subject. I like the word (an obscure and delightful vestige of an old Germanic tongue), but other than the David Howard incident, I can't imagine anyone scavenging enough relevant encyclopedic content to sustain a real article.

I have read the discussion from the prior nomination and am not convinced. The rationale of the keep votes seems to be that a) the Howard controversy was notable and that b) people would have a hard time finding info about it without typing the word "niggardly" into the search box. That argument strikes me as bizarre, but if people still feel this way 2 years later, I suggest reducing the article to a prominent Wiktionary link along with a dab statement reading something like "For the guy who got in trouble for saying niggardly, see Nigger#Near-homophones", or "David Howard incident" or some other article that doesn't purport to be about something it's not. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If possible I would like to withdraw my nomination. Noroton has done a remarkable job digging up more and more citations for misunderstandings resulting from the use of this word. It is still desirable, however, that we change the name of the article, given that it focuses exclusively on the word's unfortunate similarity to the word nigger and does not really treat any other aspects of niggardly as an English word. I'm going to start a page move discussion on the talk page when I'm not so tired. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep appears to have some notability. Recognized by washington post.--Sefringle 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article was called "David Howard Incident," I might agree with you. But as it is, I don't see it.Chunky Rice 17:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and here's why: There wasn't just the incident involving the Washington, D.C. bureaucrat, there were two other instances: At the University of Wisconsin, a student complained about a professor who used the word. About a month after the David Howard incident, she brought up the incident at a meeting where the school's speech code was debated; as a result of what was considered the outrageous oversensitivity of her claim (she had earlier filed a complaint against the professor), the speech code was abolished. The student's In North Carolina, a teacher was reprimanded for using the word in her class of fourth-graders. It seems to me that the article could be renamed "Controversies over the word Niggardly" with a redirect from "Niggardly". Noroton 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's good to keep these type of object lessons around. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced and many examples of usage (and controversy over its usage) that make this much more than a dicdef. Dragomiloff 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to David Howard Incident. Dicdef. Bastiq▼e demandez 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like Noroton did a lot of good work on this article. I think that a move to "Controversies over the word Niggardly" with a redirect from "Niggardly" as suggested is also a good idea. Chunky Rice 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks Chunky Rice! I think the new information shows that the Howard incident wasn't the only one and that there's actually a lot to be said about the matter. I wouldn't at all be offended if someone else wants to edit what I've written, which I can see some problems with (I'll probably edit it a lot more later). I've probably overemphasized some of the more unusual commentary on the controversy because they interested me more. Noroton 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would by a niggardly use of resources to delete this article
  • Keep: the current cultural context of the word goes beyond its mere dictionary definition. 68.190.48.20 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with majority--the word goes beyond its mere dictionary definition--Dseer 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it's been nominated before and the vote failed. Deal with it. StuartH 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: It seems to me that the entire problem arises from the fact that it 'looks' like a dicdef because the title of the article doesn't convey a person, place, thing, or concept. Change the title to something like "Niggardly as a precieved pejorative". Mensch 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, with a rename to "Niggardly controversy". Mensch's proposed title, though well intentioned, is not appropriate because it includes a negative term in the title, prejudicing the discussion when the reader comes to the article. HuskyHuskie 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with the above rename. Interesting article though really not an issue outside the United States.
  • Strong keep, If you want to perpetuate ignorance, remove the article. Wiki is fast becoming a google-level resource.
  • Strong keep, with slight disinclination to rename; see tar baby for comparison. --moof 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:20Z

Nancy Drew Computer Game Culprits

[edit]
Nancy Drew Computer Game Culprits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod on 5 Feb with reason of "Non-notable cruft. How is a list of culprits notable? It's like listing bosses for each Mario game: better suited for a video game wiki." Prod expired, I deleted, agreeing that it wasn't needed. Article later recreated. I restored history underneath. Prod today with reason of "list not needed, since this can all be mentioned in the articles on the books themselves". Prod can't be done twice, so this comes to AFD. This unsourced list is not encyclopedic. GRBerry 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HFboards

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

Non notable board, no references cited, seems to be fairly blatant advertising --Miskwito 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin of the board, I have to agree with most of what you're saying. It's not intended as advertising, but the board...while the biggest hockey board on the web...is a messageboard nonetheless and rather non-notable as such. As an aside, members that have been banned from teh board have been using vandalizing the wiki page as a means of a sandbox, and we'd rather just not deal with the headache. Predshockey17 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well, if you want to be direct about it, what keeps those other articles up is that either no AfDs have been filed on them or if any have, there was no consensus to Delete. If you think there are articles on non-notable bulletin boards around, feel free to file AfDs on them. That being said, the VFR campaign had nothing to do with the HF boards. RGTraynor 14:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not to nitpick, as I am voting for deletion despite my membership at HF...but the VFR campaign most certainly DID have something to do with HF...not only did it originate there, most of those participating and creating a buzz about it were HF members through HF threads(over 10,000 posts worth). It started at HF...and THEN spread elsewhere.Predshockey17 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And to follow up on the last comment, if you actually noticed, I posted links to the thread that it began. If you followed the timeline, you will clearly see that is where it began in spite of it being posted to a few other boards around the same time. Also, there is a story from USA Today. It said that in order for the article to be kept, links had to be provided and I did that and followed the guidelines. If you still think that isn't enough, then just get rid of it I guess. I don't really feel as strongly about it as the folks who want it deleted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn John Reaves (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Thayer

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

The article does not assert its own notability and reads (and was regularly referred to in other articles) as little more than a genealogical reference. Flex (talk|contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed, and I retract this AfD. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The two assertions are the D.D.; this was quite unusual, and beyond what most ministers had (or have today)., and the 5 printed sermons, when most ministers did not publish any (and do not do so today either). There will be many such articles to remove who do not have such indications.DGG 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • His DD and minor publications don't assert his notability. Many published authors simply are not notable. BTW, the Britannica and Schaff-Herzog both omit him. While I admit people can be overlooked and/or under-appreciated in their own day, what has changed? What do we know/value that they didn't? --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless further evidence is forthcoming. DGG, I submit that your perception of how common it was to publish sermons is incorrect. Countless ministers, frontiersmen, politicians, scientific farmers, inventors and others published pamphlets. You could call it the 19th century blog. Nor is a D.D. degree notability by itself. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thayer is mentioned repeatedly in Jonathan C. Messerli, "James G. Carter's Liabilities as a Common School Reformer", in History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Mar., 1965), pp. 14-25. Stable URL (with Jstor subscr.): [43] Messerli references (n. 20 on p. 24) W. B. Sprague, "Nathaniel Thayer", Annals of the American Pulpit, VIII (New York 1865), 246-50, and "Nathaniel Thayer", Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography, ed. James Grant Wilson and John Fiske (NY 1889), VI, 73. Pharamond 07:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone have access to these? Why is he mentioned? What is his claim to fame, as it were? --Flex (talk|contribs)
  • Keep. In addition to what has been noted by DGG and Pharamond, there is also the source from the Harvard Divinity School. Wikipedia is not Britannica and our goal should not merely be to duplicate them. We don't know the reason Britannica did not exclude Thayer and we should not speculate on it. -- Black Falcon 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know the WP is not a paper encyc, but it's also not RootsWeb. I'm not opposed to keeping him if his notability can be established. The problem is that the article as it stands doesn't make any claim to notability; all it says is that he was a man who lived and died, wrote a few apparently obscure publications, and had some apparently non-notable children. What exactly is his "claim to fame"? --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that he has had works published about him establishes his notability. I have access to the JSTOR source (but not the others) and will presently incorporate it into the article (incidentally, that article does identify a "claim to fame" for Thayer). -- Black Falcon 17:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'll bite: What notable "claim to fame" does the article give? (Or was your intended antecedent the JSTOR article?) I look forward to your improvements of the article, which hopefully will allow me to withdraw this AfD. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have finished my changes (including some minor cleanup/reorganisation). I believe the new information, and the fact that the subject has significantly more written about him than was initially available at the start of this AFD, should fully satisfy any notability concerns. In addition to the old fact of his being a minister, I have added the following:
  1. He was a famous/respected minister, involved in 150+ local church councils (in many cases he wrote the councils' decisions); and
  2. He was involved in a dispute with James G. Carter, which contributed to Carter losing the election for Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, the first board of education in the USA (Carter was instrumental to its creation). -- Black Falcon 20:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The dispute with Carter would be big news if it happened today, and was apparently big news in the 1830s too. Not an earth-shatteringly important figure, but few people are. The article is solidly sourced and the case for notability is made. Props to Black Falcon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:23Z

Ebony Ayes

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Delete. Joie de Vivre 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete She kind of meets WP:PORNBIO due to the number of films. Dismas|(talk) 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:PORNBIO; very popular porn star from the 1980s and early 1990s. Even people voting "delete" are admitting she meets WP:PORNBIO, which is beyond silly. Xihr 21:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She definitely seems to be notable under WP:PORNBIO. Pretty big name and prolific in porn films, especially African-American ones, in her time. The problem with the article appears to be that she seems to have kept herself private (ironic as that sounds), and no one seems to know anything about her other than her stage name and what films she was in. There doesn't seem to be anything else known, and that can be sourced, to report. Since the article is a year and a half old, I don't guess there's much reason to think that situation will change. But still, I don't know that there's a specific minimum length that a porn start bio article has to be. So since she is in fact notable, I guess I'd go with keeping it. Mwelch 21:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The only parameter under which she qualifies on WP:PORNBIO is number of films. She clearly has made a lot, but so do many other porn actors. The qualification for this parameter uses the word "prolific", which is undefined. I am willing to be persuaded; given that for a porn flick all you need is a partner, a bed, some lights and a camera is 159 movies prolific? If it is I will reverse my opinion.--Anthony.bradbury 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep However, the article should be labeled a "stub". Neitherday 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May satisfy shortcuts to notability in the disputed WP:PORNBIO but does not meet WP:ATT WP:BIO or WP:N. Edison 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:PORNBIO. We're done here. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:ATT, WP:BIO and WP:N. Three reliable secondary sources, passing attribution. "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" passing Notability (people). Also passes extra criteria for Entertainers ("Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers, A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following, A credible independent biography, Wide name recognition...") Plus highly prolific-- over 100 films. The article needs work, and should be labeled a stub, but it's a clear keep. Dekkappai 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also-- The fact that she has articles at three other Wikipedias should speak for her international notability as well. Removing an article on a U.S. subject from the English Wikipedia while it exists in three other languages would be highly questionable. Dekkappai 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:PORNBIO. I've heard of her even though I don't follow porn. Chyel 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-known performer with extensive film credits. i agree that the stub template could be attached, but there's no reason to delete. --Hexvoodoo 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:PORNBIO criteria number 4. She was one of the most notable and prolific performers of the 1980s within the big-bust genre. Epbr123 02:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than satisfied WP:PORNBIO which people should be reminded is not official policy. 23skidoo 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NO CONTENT should be erased unless they violate law. Child porn, beastiality etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisZeddybear (talk • contribs)

What are you talking about?!? Dismas|(talk) 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:24Z

Rachel Aziani

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

Subject of biographical article does not meet guidelines for notability. Delete. Joie de Vivre 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (already done by User:JzG). Sandstein 07:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Community of Practice

[edit]
Scientific Community of Practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incoherent turgid jargon; notability far from clear; cited source provides no support for strange claims. Created by another user to avoid disruption by single-purpose editor at Communities of practice, but has not had that effect (see User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions). If anyone can divine a reason for keeping this article, then it needs a severe copyedit and cleanup. TedFrank 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 14, 2007 Response RE: The Suitability Of Scientific Communities of Practice for Wikipedia Inclusion==
We apologize for any disruption caused by our unfamiliarity with the details of scripting in the submission of any of our contributions for Wikipedia: Any and all assistance in making necessary improvements in that regard will be appreciated.
At the same time, the notability of this scientific subject material, that includes citations from notable international-caliber scientific agencies (like the U.S. National Institutes of Health), national scientific policy boards (like the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) and major academic institutions (like Northwestern University), seems unquestionable.
If any editors have different interpretations of any cited references, again -- we would appreciate your clarification.
In closing, we hope that the current debate is not a rejection of a 'Scientific Perspective' on any relevant subject issue (like 'communities of practice'): Scientific perspectives have their own stand-alone merit, as they add balance, to other views of a pertinent subject (such as a 'Philosphical Perspective' or an 'Economic Perspective'. All of the Wikipedia patterns of practice on other sites reveal this claim to be true.
There should not be any exception in this case: As the scientific readership of Wikipedia grows, then the scientific relevance (at least as a reading option) for any relevant issue should also grow.
We are contributing referenced and scientifically-objective reviews on important scientific topic areas that we manage professionally every day. While we welcome any constructive editorial contributions to our submitted material, we will do everything possible to ask for higher administrative action, if the stated intention is to reject any of our contributions -- mainly because they represent a 'Scientific Perspective'.
Thank you for your consideration of our request for active, line-by-line, constructive improvement of our contributions to Wikipedia.
Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the owner of the 'Communities of Practice' site has summarily removed the 'scientific communities of practice' contribution today (without comment or negotiation), a separate stand-alone 'Scientific communities of practice' (shown below) entry is offered to avoid site warring, while still giving voice to a large and growing body of scientific research: Notable citations in the field of 'scientific communities of practice' include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to academic institutions around the world. (Notability simply cannot be cited as a concern with this scientific field).
As the scientific readership of Wikipedia grows, the need to address their scientific interests must grow also. Moreover, there are a growing number of consumers who would like to understand 'the science' of many of the central issues of our time: 'Scientific communities of practice' is one of those issues.
We are asking for an expedited approval of the 'Scientific communities of practice' entry in exchange for removing this topic from all other Wikipedia sites. We would appreciate your expedited approval of this request, and we would welcome any editorial contributions that would strengthen the encyclopedic knowledge that this entry affords to Wikipedia readers.
Sincerely,
Stevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxism

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

This appears to be a new philosophy, that is not yet notable. Although Goole throws up a lot, they are mostly unrelated, forums, or blogs. Delete unless sources can be found. J Milburn 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see you have. Second mistake in two minutes. Things are not going well... J Milburn 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the author of Paxism, and I do not believe it noteworthy enough to be included on Wikipedia. I do not know the person who published it here, but he sent me a message this evening on myspace. Apparently, he thought of using the term in a novel he is writing, searched google and found my philosophy, liked it, and copied it here. I am pleased to see that it has an appeal, but it is really not relevant enough to merit an article here. --Mindbender 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a test of knowledge or trivia game. It is an encyclopedia. This article is either trivia or a test.--Sefringle 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:26Z

Meaning (scientific)

[edit]
Meaning (scientific) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On an organizational level, there would appear to be no need to fork a separate "scientific" definition of the existing meaning, and no justification is given for this separate entry. The content itself reads like an opinion essay exploring a particular set of views (Jonas Salk), and a couple other (somewhat tenuous) connections. There is no reason to believe that this text represents or could reasonably be edited to represent a general, NPOV overview of "Meaning" in the "scientific" sense, even if such a separate article were to be deemed necessary. David Oberst 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Deleted IrishGuy talk 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jemima from the tale of jemaima puddleduck is a God

[edit]
Jemima from the tale of jemaima puddleduck is a God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

page is nonesense
Saber girl08 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Krusty Towers. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:27Z

The Krusty Towers

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

A non-notable fictonal hotel. No links, I don't think it needs its own article Reywas92Talk 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Prodego talk 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit (2nd Nomination)

[edit]
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See first nomination.

Redirect to The God Delusion. POV fork deleted and redirected 4 months ago. One tenacious editor determined to challenge this. Sophia 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Rename Needs to reflect the broader remit that is now being discussed. This article should redirect to the new one that has been so well worked by Merzul et al. as this will allow for true balance and an exploration of the sources for this convincing argument. Sophia 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this means that the AfD nomination is withdrawn? I agree that the name chosen by Dawkins is slightly unfortunate, but no other reasonable name used by notable commentators has been suggested. I've started a section on the talk page about it and if we can find a name that is used by at least 4 notable commentators and has at least 300 ghits then we can rename the article later - I would not oppose a consensus to rename if it emerges from the talk pages after this AfD (though I would contribute to the debate). But let's close this AfD, with thanks to all contriubtors, and get on with improving the article and others. NBeale 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, no - the AfD discussion is not finished. Please do not make all our minds up for us! The original proposer may have changed her mind, and the article has changed substantially during the course of the debate, but there is still a discussion taking place, and we need to agree whether to (a) leave it where it is; or (b) delete it; or (c) turn it back into a redirect to The God Delusion; or (d) make it a redirect to somewhere else; or (e) keep it but rename it. I think those are the choices. Snalwibma 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already an article on the Existence of God Sophia 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sophia and Snalwimba are nowwere editing the article to make it worse to support their deletion arguments(!) to remove half the refed material. Please bear this in mind, and check that you are looking at a version from a proponent of the article with the 8 notable commentators (see below), before you vote. NBeale 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (amended by NBeale 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)and then by NBeale 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • NBeale - please retract that accusation. It is rubbish. It is untrue. Discussion on the content of the article is taking place on the talk page, and I have justified everything I have done - which is designed to improve the article, not to make it more likely to be deleted. Snalwibma 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBeale - even with your changes to the text of your comment, it is still an unfounded personal attack. It is not worthy of you to impugn the motives of fellow-editors in this way. Again, I invite you to retract your comment completely. Snalwibma 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an unfounded personal attack and I invite anyone interested to review the points we have raised on the talk page and judge for themselves whether they are valid or not. Sophia 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8 Notable Commentators The article is not about Dawkins's phrase but about the philosophical argument that he is trying to make, which is discussed by at least 8 notable commentators: (1) Richard Dawkins; (2)Alister McGrath (3)Alvin Plantinga (4)H. Allen Orr (5) Daniel Dennett, (6) William F. Vallicella (7) Michael Shermer in Science, (8) Lawrence M. Krauss in Nature. S & S & another Editor who wants to delete have have been editing down the article to remove more than half this sourced material.NBeale 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Now instead Merzul is adding material about a slightly different but related argument made by Dawkins in the same chapter, but I can see no strong reason for not including it as well although technically it's not the "747 Gambit". NBeale 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot see that "POV fork" is a valid reason for deletion in WP:Deletion policy. The only reference in this policy that I can find that is relevant is here which suggests that it is not a valid reason for deletion. Please explain if/why I am mistaken, if not you might want to consider changing your vote (PS I am the author as noted below) NBeale 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article can't be written without undue weight problems. This analogy used by Dawkins is reported in a couple of sentences and the the rest of the article (several paragraphs and the real point of the article) is used to criticize it. A classic POV fork. Sophia 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article has 4 sections, 3 expound the argument and the 4th has 3 critics and 1 supporter2 supporters, so it's pretty much 50:50; and Dawkins thinks it's an argument not an analogy. But "POV Fork" seems not to be a valid reason for deletion according to WP:Deletion policy, indeed it seems that it may be specifically not a reason. NBeale 07:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice misrepresentation of the article. One section (tiny) is the lead, the second section (tiny) is the background, the third section is an OR synopsis of Dawkins argument taken from a critic of the theory. The biggest section by far is the criticism section. Hardly 50:50. The article as it now stands is just a tag line to hang Alister McGrath's new book on. As for the deletion policy - your link does not address POV forks. What it does do is highlight my concerns - is this article capable of an NPOV stance with good authorship and I still say no. It has become a vehicle to reduce The God Delusion to criticism of one particular phrase via an eclectic mix of OR and apologetics and I see no hope that focusing on this one phrase will produce anything else. Sophia 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well said, Sophia. This whole article stinks. It's a million miles from an honest attempt at an NPOV encyclopedia article. The whole enterprise is built on spotting an opportunity to indulge in some dishonest Dawkins-bashing. Snalwibma 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well in word count it's 37:63 but NPOV does not mean exactly the same number of words for and against: it means reporting fairly and NPOV what notable commentators have said. Other editors can judge for themselves whether "stinks" and "dishonest" are good arguments for deletion or personal attacks. According to policy "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process, and the article will usually be speedy kept." NBeale 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One important point you neatly gloss over is WP:Undue weight. That is the issue here and your figures confirm the problem - 63% of the article is devoted to criticism according to the numbers you have given (ie 26% more attacking the theory than explaining it). Wikilawyer your way out of that one NBeale. This is NOT a content dispute and I resent your attempts to slur honest editors. Sophia 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is not a protest strategy in a content debate, the problem is that this article can't be presented neutrally. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV#POV forks. We might not be right in these concerns, but since this argument has not been mentioned anywhere other than in book reviews of The God Delusion, it is a genuine concern that this should be treated in the main article. Claiming that Sophia is abusing the AfD process is therefore an unfounded personal attack. Please recall that when you, NBeale, were concerned with neutrality here, we didn't accuse you of trying to suppress information, so let's continue this debate assuming good faith... on both sides of course. After all, many philosophers argue that God is watching this... --Merzul 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the POV fork policy. Seems perfectly clear from reading this that this article is not a POV fork. The balance of the article fairly reflects published sources: if you can find futher notable published sources that support the argument please add them (disputes about 63:27 balance seem to be disputes about content to me). But I don't think further responses from me here are helpful. Let's allow other Editors to decide. NBeale 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you are the major proponent for this article your answers to the WP:Undue weight questions would be most helpful to others trying to follow this discussion. Sophia 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sophia. Well final comment: I certainly intend that this article should "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" and I believe that it does so. But if you can find verifiable sources that I have missed, please add to them to the article and improve it. This is not a reason for deleting it. 09:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Snalwibma is now editing the article to take out refs to make it appear more one-sided. I don't think it is proper for people who are trying to get an article deleted to edit it to make it worse in the hope that this will boster their case. NBeale 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a substantial reworking of the original article providing thoroughly reliable and verifiable sources addressing the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument as an integral argument separate and apart from the book. The result of the previous AfD is irrelevant and the vote here is meaningless without referencing the article as it exists. This is an unfortunate but ancient tactic of voting to get rid of an article while simultaneously butchering it. Alansohn 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The orginal article was arguably premature in that at the time the only notable reference to this argument was in The God Delusion. However since then we have seen four notable commentators address this argument. This new article is carefully refed and quite different from the old one. Although 3 of the commentators criticise the argument and only one defends it, this is an accurate reflection of the critical debate and the article itself takes no POV on which commentators are right. If course the article can be improved but it is way above the notability threshold IMHO. And there is too much material to incorporate into The God Delusion article which is already a bit long. FWIW I am the original author of the article, but the need for it was identifed by another Editor who put in a WikiLink from The God Delusion 13 days before I created the article. NBeale 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but edit the article to place it better in context. This is an article which, in one form or another, has been around for quite some time, and it's well worth having an article on the subject. Even as is, it contains enough info and is notable enough to justify its own article - this is probably Dawkins' favourite argument, in TGD and elsewhere, and also something that has been responded to by a number of other people. TJ 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but the current title is very restrictive and TGD specific. Dawkins has an essay from 1998 entitled "The Improbability of God", and some title along such lines would be more appropriate if we want an article on the underlying argument. The only advantage of this current title is that we have a nice image of an aeroplane with a caption highly suitable for an uncyclopedia. --Merzul 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Rename Either redirect to The God Delusion that already contains the relevant criticism by Plantinga and Orr, or what I would now prefer rename this so we can give a proper treatment of the "improbability of God" or "scientific arguments against the existence of God", see the talk page. Dawkins' argument is not notable enough on its own, neither is Dawkins a philosopher, so we can't expect to extract a logical outline of the argument from a popular text like The God Delusion without some serious original research, and I don't think it is NPOV to use an outline proposed by a critic. In any case, given the current sources, the only article we can write here is "Criticism of the Ultimate 747 Gambit". --Merzul 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Rename - I like the "improbability of God" suggestion, it would enable one to look at the argument itself - which is significant - in its broader historical context, would be a good way of arranging material, and would be very helpful. Am trying to work out how to strikethrough my previous vote. Thanks, Merzul. TJ 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for considering it, now another thing that requires consideration would be the actual title. "Improbability of God" is maybe slightly POV. That's certainly the title of Dawkins' essay and Michael Martin's book, but perhaps we can think of a more neutral title... And Sophia, note that the existence of God and most arguments we cover with individual articles aren't quite like this. The argument from poor design is highly related, but seems more of an "impossibility of God" type argument. --Merzul 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Argument against the existence of God currently redirects to Existence of God so I think there is some sorting out to do before we create yet another article on the same theme. Sophia 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as this sets a new standard for other articles for the improbability-of-ultimate-being (of which this allusion is just one of that class). Previously it was hard to have such recently invented neologisms get traction in Wikipedia even when other "notable" people had referenced the neologism. So I'm happy that this sticks. Ttiotsw 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you really think we would benefit from having articles on each argument mentioned here, or are you being sarcastic? This question is itself not intended to be sarcastic or clever in any way, I'm actually confused here. --Merzul 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in essence what the Stenger link has in it is almost a full list of articles for this set of improbability hypothesis examples. We do not really have each of these very well documented as nicely as the current '747 article in Wikipedia (POV aside). That the '747 article today appeals to some people need not mean that tomorrow the article will have the same appeal. So it may end up more ironic than sarcastic if you consider what could be planned for the future using '747 as the catalyst for change ends up not being congruent to the essence of my reply. Ttiotsw 14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:28Z

Ken Bird

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

This person doesn't seem to be notable engouh to meet Wikipedia criteria. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dave_Davis for a more general debate. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 21:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who created this article as I believe it is a worthy addition to the article about Briitish Rail Class 357 EMU's. The practice of naming locomotives after all sorts people (not just train drivers) has been around for centuries. Sadly no one seems to want to record who these people are or were. I understand that right here and now, the names which relate to the articles I have created maybe the most boring thing known to mankind, but in the future Wikipedia maybe the only place that has this information. For this reason, I would prefer the articles created to give a piece of history about these locomotives and their names to remain.

I appreciate that these articles maybe as much fun as watching paint dry, but I could probably find a few thousand articles by other people on other subjects that I would also consider equally boring.

Sincerely Theanders 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, let's keep it. - Richard Cavell 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Juggs

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

Model no longer satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Survived last deletion nomination because there was a pornographic movie named after her. This is no longer a criteria for notability. Epbr123 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|(talk) 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Keep per Dekkappai. Dismas|(talk) 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She appears to be a model, not an actress. Does WP:PORNBIO apply? 209.78.98.27 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment above, no sign of notability even if WP:PORNBIO doesn't apply. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Three such sources are given in the article. And further, "Entertainers... Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers" Her IMDB entry lists two such features. -- Dekkappai 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Danni.com profile is not 'independent of the subject' as Ashley Juggs models for that website. The Rotten Tomatoes filmography is as invalid as an IMDb filmography as a criteria for notability. I doubt that Score magazine counts as a 'credible magazine'. Epbr123 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Score has been around since 1992, and it's not a 'credible magazine' in the porn, and particularly big-bust genre? It's often pointed out that the Notability requirements are there to keep out vanity pages, and articles on "my neighbor's kid." Well, this article has multiple sourcing, and shows multiple video appearances, multiple magazine appearances... This is not "my neighbor's kid" we're talking about. It would be to Wikipedia's advantage to have the best biography available on subjects just like this. The "Notability" requirements are abused when they are used to delete articles on a minor celebrities, rather than to keep out vanity pages. Dekkappai 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Appearing in a porn mag a couple of times doesn't establish notability. Probably around a thousand models have appeared in Score magazine. She should only be kept if it can be shown she is one of the top models in the big-bust genre. I think you've made your point that all porn stars should be included regardless of notability. Epbr123 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so we're going to change rules and renominate.... ahh yes the old "I'll keep listing shit on AFD til I get my way" argument. Validly kept last time... nothing of significance has changed.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to Political power —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:31Z

Positions of power

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

This article is apparently original research on an unnotable topic. It's got no references and is written almost entirely by one user, seemingly only from his own perspective. Google search "position of power" media returns only one result that seems remotely close to the topic, and adding hegemony to that search seems to leave nothing on topic. Ichibani 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 is no consensus to delete. I'm ignoring the politics behind this article and its editing history. The article clearly satisfies the broad policy requirements for inclusion. - Richard Cavell 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khachkar destruction

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

This article is becoming a POV mess between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors. Both sides have expressed a desire for this article to be deleted once and for all. This article was nominated for deletion earlier with a conclusion of keep. It also lacks links to other articles, aside from discussion pages and redirects. -- Aivazovsky 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. This article has been redirected to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city). Decided to continue AfD. -- Aivazovsky 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not acceptable. I appreciate you being bold, but there isnt any call for you to "fix this mess" on your own. The only way a nominators withdrawal would be reason to close is if the article is left in the original state before the Afd. The consensus so far is that this article should be kept as-is. John Vandenberg 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can I withdraw my nomination first and after this AfD is closed, then can the article be redirected? -- Aivazovsky 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing your nomination indicates you are happy for the article to remain in its original condition before you nominated it. The admin can still close it as "keep" or "no consensus" or whatever they feel is appropriate. Withdrawing your nomination will probably have little bearing on the admins approach to closing this Afd. If the admin decides "keep" then it would be a brave person to redirect the article soon thereafter, effectively overriding the closing admins decision. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Afd process, but typically if a redirect is an appropriate outcome for the Afd, people will vote/comment along the lines of:
"Redirect to Article, reasoning".
If others agree, that is usually what the admin will do when they close the Afd. If you think that a redirect is the appropriate outcome, you need to suggest it on this Afd (down the bottom please) with a good reason for doing that, taking into account what Atabek has mentioned at the end of this Afd. All discussions regarding the outcome of this article should be discussed here; not on some talk page somewhere. John Vandenberg 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrators: Artaxiad created this article. -- Aivazovsky 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - As long as AdilBaguirov and Dacy69 will be on Wikipedia, such articles will be sabotaged. This argument is not proper and unusual argument to delete per Afd main, but this article will only create edit wars. Fad (ix) 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was not initial contributor of that article or in anyway substantially edited it. See 'History" - I just once restored deleted important information. You clearly show you racism and bias on every page falsely accusing me and Adil. You barely talk on the substance of editing rather than the same groundless accussation over and over again. It is indeed funny - people who voted for keeping that article week ago now want its deletion because they have lost their arguments.--Dacy69 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So racist of me. Fad (ix) 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you changed "comment" to "keep". This action seems to invite other Azeri editors to vote "keep" so to "give the Armenian editors a dose of their own medicine." The sad thing is that this will probably happen too. -- Aivazovsky 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman casualties of World War I was nominated for deletion twice and nobody made an issue out of it. -- Aivazovsky 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times can the same article be nominated within 1 week? Grandmaster 11:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but this has just become a huge mess. It's not helping anything when it comes to relations between Armenian-Azerbaijani users. Even the creator of this article wants it to be deleted. -- Aivazovsky 11:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why then he voted to keep the first time? Grandmaster 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, though I convinced him later that keeping it wasn't worth it. -- Aivazovsky 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself voted to keep it. Grandmaster 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that was because my vote would not have made a difference anyway. By the time I voted, "keep" was already gaining a clear majority. -- Aivazovsky 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying that you didn't express your actual feelings and just picked what you thought was going to be the 'winning' side? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the AfD was due to close soon anyway and the vote was inevitable. -- Aivazovsky 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's terrible. How can you expect anyone to ever take you seriously again? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the current editors are unable to work on this without keeping daggers in their pockets, why not agree to write a short stub (keep the images in gallery on the article so they wont be deleted as orphans), and then walk away from the article, leaving new editors to deal with it. John Vandenberg 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They will edit war what to include in the sub. Fad (ix) 15:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There should be an article about the destruction of khachkars in the Azeri occupied province of Nakhichevan. The current article is just a total mess.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep First articles about disputes between ethnic or political group have a very strong presumption to remain in WP. WP is not an ideal version of the United Nations, in which such disputes could be settled, or the issues definitively clarified. Our role is to provide a neutral forum in which all such allegations can be discussed.

When people want to suppress such an article, it can either be dissatisfaction that one's own side is not being treated fairly, or a realization that the fair treatment of one's own position will lead to conclusion contrary to one's own interests. Neither reason is valid. There is no subject which cannot be properly edited, if necessary by a third party. If both sides think a neutral article unfair, this can be seen as a demonstration of prima fascia NPOV. And if a fair article does in fact show one party to be unambiguously in the wrong--as is sometimes the case--then there is all the more reason to prevent the persecution from extending here. WP is not censored, and this does not just refer to sex. The majority of the editors here will not be personally involved in any one ethnic controversy, and an article fairly edited will express what will usually be a fair view of the range of public opinion. Let each side say in the article what it can, with opinions expressed in 3rd party quotes supported by references. The reader will judge. (And the reader will get some guide to judgment from seeing who it was that tried to prevent the article from appearing.)

Second it is an abuse of process to renom articles indefinitely or at short intervals in the hope of getting a favorable verdict eventually--and the recent case of the D.B. article exposes the absurdity of our continuing to permit it. There is no written policy preventing it specifically; perhaps there should be. Personally, I would extent the general idea of 3RR to at least a limit to three tries a year at no shorter than three-month intervals, or--much better-- 1RR, one try a year. But policy is made also by the community in its decisions here, and it should refuse to entertain quickly repeated tries. Without reference to the particular parties here, I would say that a nom this quickly is often indicative of bad faith. WP:VAND defines Vandalism as editing content in such a way as to disrupt WP. Common sense would interpret this as including any attempt to disrupt WP by deleting content through the use of the WP processes. Until such behavior is accepted as appropriate for a RfA, we can at least discourage the behavior by voting keep on repeated noms unless there is truly reevaluation of the evidence or obvious injustice. It is good to see the many eds. already saying this.DGG 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting for deletion can be done by using common sense, in this case the initiative was taken when I said that it would be better to delete it. This was not done in bad faith. There is an ungoing Arbitration case involving Armenia-Azerbaijan. This article was created during the case and involve it. My reason into proposing it, which resulted with the proposal itself, was that the creation was innapropriate. The timing is innapriate. What was supposed to be Khachkar destructions, which was reported in various notable publications such as The Independent [48], The Times [49] or the Archaeological Institute of America. [50]. But what happened was that Adil and Dacy started toying with the article, disturbing it. I have proposed their banning on the Workshop and believe that until proper measures are taken by the Arbcom, it is better to delete this article to not cause further disruption. Fad (ix) 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the article isnt the appropriate way to achieve consensus. Read Wikipedia:Deletion policy; specifically Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates: Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. On what policy are you basing this request for the article to be deleted? The topic meets our inclusion criteria. If there are editing issues, Arbcom is the right direction to take things. Afd should not be making those types of decisions. John Vandenberg 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was using common sense. [51] But it seems this whole thing is creating another type of conflict, which is against the purpouses of my proposition, so for this reason I will remove my vote. Fad (ix) 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is in general, you really need to monitor Armenian-Azeri articles than you will learn a comprise will be reached not anytime soon. Artaxiad 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then all Armenian-Azeri articles should be deleted? I realise you dont mean that, but that is what will happen over time. If this article is deleted based on content issues, you will soon find that you are spending more time commenting on Afd that contributing useful information to Wikipedia. Arbcom has accepted the case, so they will help some people learn to compromise; that is their responsibility. And, I have just now added all articles mentioned on the case to my watchlist so hopefully I can help be an impartial influence so the articles move towards a NPOV. John Vandenberg 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, doesn't compare, as it was a new article. Anyway, like I said, I'm going to retreave my vote. Fad (ix) 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of this. It seems that nobody has any idea about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict here on Wikipedia. If they did then they'd vote for deletion of this article. Here we are debating the validity of deletion even after Artaxiad, this article's own creator voted for its deletion (that has to count for something). -- Aivazovsky 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not count, because once the article is created it belongs to Wikipedia and the creator has no ownership on it. Grandmaster 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think I can find a way out of this mess yet. -- Aivazovsky 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet the criteria it doesn't even have reliable sources. Artaxiad 15:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And who created this article? It is you. You, guys, have excellent sense of humor. --Dacy69 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article, claimed by Artaxiad as POV, was created by him. I don't see a reason why it should be deleted after the evidence of destruction in Armenia is included as well. Obviously, by first creating the article and now trying to delete it, Artaxiad does not hide the agenda of creating the article with a sole purpose of attacking Azerbaijan. Aivazovsky's forwarding to Julfa is also unacceptable (although I am sorry for him "getting sick" over it, as he stated above), because Julfa is the territory of Azerbaijan, while destruction of khachkars is alleged on Armenian territory as well. So this is obviously issue separate from the topic of Julfa. Atabek 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was redirected to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city) twice by Aivazovsky, apparently in consultation with Grandmaster according to the edit log. Dacy69 and I have each reverted the redirect once; my reason is that someone should have mentioned the redirect here first in order to gather consensus. This is a sensitive issue, so the right thing to do is stick to the book and move slowly. John Vandenberg 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect was not agreed with me, I just did not object to it on a certain condition. I agree that I should not have discussed this in private, and all the discussion should be on this page or on talk of the article. Grandmaster 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city) on the condition that an article specifically on this topic will not be created again. Let's make it public then. Is that agreeable? -- Aivazovsky 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the current Khachkar destruction pertains to destruction in Armenia as well, then redirect to Julfa would confuse the issue and limit it to Azerbaijan only. So the answer is no, it's not agreeable. Atabek 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, what if the article was deleted with the condition that an article specifically on this topic will not be created again? Would that be acceptable? This article is becoming a major headache (and I'm sure there are others, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis who agree with me on this). -- Aivazovsky 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Peter H. Gilmore. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:35Z

The Satanic Scriptures

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

Does not meet notability standards in WP:BK Craigtalbert 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to article on author: Close call. It will almost certainly become notable, but that is certainly not reason to keep. However, we have a review here. For now, I think all the information should be kept in the article on the author, and it can be moved out if and when this becomes notable in its own right. J Milburn 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on author or keep: While I believe, personally, that deleting the article is counter-productive, my sources for its notability pre-release are not up to Wikipedia's standards. Give it its own article at a later date. However, it should be noted that many of Anton LaVey's books' articles have less info than even this article, yet have their own. This is excusable because of his historical influence, and in my opinion should be the same here, but it's a very close call. Darkahn 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep per above. As I said on the talk page, with reliable sources citing anticipation of the book, it'd be a definite keep. Jeodesic 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on author per J Milburn's recommendation. -- Craigtalbert 01:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:35Z

My Last Victory

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

A non notable band. I removed the speedy because I found this, but this alone does not confer notability, despite being from such a good source. Delete unless another source can be found. J Milburn 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep / No deletion, but the two articles should be merged somehow, possibly to an altogether new title such as "Competitive and collaborative photoshopping" or "Photoshopping pastimes" or just merge to Photoshopping. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:39Z

Photoshop tennis

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

Edit war over notability by an IP and a user. IP wanted to redirect to Photoshop contest, user wanted to keep separate. I'm concerned about notability, so I'm reverting and listing it for AfD, to see if it's a valid stand-alone article (I doubt it, one mention in Wired doesn't seem very notable), should be redirected, or purely deleted. -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Keep or Merge - I'm the "user" maintaining that it is notable, so I weigh in with a Keep. For the record, a Google search of "photoshop tennis" "Photoshop Tennis" "Photoshop tennis" -wikipedia gives 149,000 hits, as of my last search. Nihiltres 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with photoshop contest. Not enough notability for a stand-alone article (Google hits by themselves are not enough to indicate notability). This is a type of photoshop contest, and since both articles are short, there's no need for the sub-type to have its own article. In this case, one substantial article is better than two skimpy ones. Stebbins 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, merging may be a good idea... and Google hits are an indication of notability to a certain extent, since most photoshop tennis is carried out through a web site. Nihiltres 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There appears to be a clear difference between Pcontest and Ptennis.
Pcontest is a photo which a bunch of people can edit... as a contest.
Ptennis is when users incrementally add to a photo, passing it back and forth.
I think a story writing contest Vs story which people take turns to add a sentence, is analogous to this article comparison.Bouncingmolar 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the definition of "contest". Ptennis is a competitive activity, and therefore can be called a contest. Stebbins 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, should soccer, real tennis, or basketball be referred to as "contests"? It is unreasonable to overgeneralize a competitive activity as a contest, since the word "contest" generally carries the implicit idea that it is parallel in execution. In this case, the article Photoshop contest directly refers to a contest in the context of concurrent submissions: "The contest usually asks users to edit the picture in a humorous way, or according to a specific theme. The users then go away and edit the image to the requirements and post their results to the site." Photoshop tennis is executed alternatively, as referenced in the article: "The players pick a starting image, then one player makes some sort of alteration to the image in any graphics manipulation package that they like. They then send their altered image, usually via email (though posting the image to a Photoshop tennis forum is another possibility), to the other player, who then edits that image and sends it back to the first player. This process goes back and forth [...]". Given this evidence, it should be clear that Photoshop tennis must not be generalized in a manner that suggests that it is parallel in execution. Nihiltres 17:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the previous opinion that while a Pcontest and Ptennis are definitely related, the difference between the two is important enough to merit separate articles. Metavida 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 unsourced WP:OR. IrishGuy talk 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Islam

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

POV fork of Islamism and Islam as a political movement and Islamic extremist terrorism. Totally unsourced. Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous afd: Talk:Militant_Islam/Delete September 18 2003.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note2: User Bless sins has removed all the unsourced information from the article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: That constitute as blanking. Luckily it was reverted. In the future please use "citation needed" tag.
COMMENT: Why would users want to put in unsourced information, when the citation tag has been up for two months, and no one has sourced this? Wikipedia says unsourced material does NOT belong.Bless sins 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed. While there is a place for {{cn}} tags for a reasonable period of time, they are not an indefinite excuse or get-out-of-jail-free card for unsourced info. What part of WP:NOR and WP:ATT are people having problems with. No WP:RS, no info, no arguments. Simple. Merbabu 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The above "vote" is from the AFD starter. George Leung 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You have to be kidding. This is a lengthy, well-written article on a phrase that is commonly used in English-language, western media. If it's poorly sourced then it needs sourcing, not deletion. - Richard Cavell 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This concept is already covered by the articles mentioned by the nominator. Content from this essay should be transferred to one or several of those articles. Stebbins 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a very well established article, possibly in need of a few more references, possibly not. Cloveoil 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Very informative article.Biophys 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As the contributor is a Muslim herself, both the article AND AFD nominator may be treading on WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, and/or WP:NOT#SOAP. Both have pointed out valid reasons, and seems to present it in a professional manner. Thus, as of now, i will just comment and be neutral. George Leung 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a great article with interesting content, which is separate from all those other 3 articles. Merging would make other articles unwieldy but I agree, its lacking sources and that should be the first step before nominating it for deletion. I believe nominator Kirbytime has engaged in vote stacking for this nomination ([52], [53], [54]) by contacting other users having a favourable opinion of Islam and informing them of this deletion. --Matt57 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I found those users by looking at the history of the page and finding the most recent contributors (not vandalism reverters, however). And having a "favorable" opinion of Islam is not against Wikipedia policy. Matt, if you can find any more users who have edited this article and are willing to engage in this afd, by all means invite them. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: How come you dont know that you're not supposed to 'vote' for your own AFD? And no, I'm not going to vote stack like you. --Matt57 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commment: Notifying users that an article they have once edited has been Afd'd is standard policy.
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users).

Please do not accuse me of bad faith.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super automated hyperbeam

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A1 – riana_dzasta 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reflux.

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

No context (tag for this removed), no notability claimed; possibly game-related, possibly self creation. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_14&oldid=1116721790"