Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

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 speedy close; procedural: previous nomination was closed hours ago. `'mikka 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy[edit]

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

The rationale for ths afd nom is intentionaly kept short.

I believe this article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references in the context of "Human Knowledge". Such an article should either be trasnwikied to meta.wiki or deleted completely. -- Cat chi? 23:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be better to transwiki this to either meta or wikinews. -- Cat chi? 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this article has a prior AfD that was closed less than 24 hours ago. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Disruptive nomination. Aren't there enough sources... [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] - Denny 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Previous AfD was closed less than 24 hours ago. Clearly enough sources to assert notability. Maxamegalon2000 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just speedy close this one... per the fact that the other AfD was just closed and showed a clear lack of consensus for the deletion of this article. (→Netscott) 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, relist in a week or so if necessary. This is too soon. —xyzzyn 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Article has received massive media attention throughout the world, including national television coverage in the U.S. Mutiple sources are listed in article for every assertion. Meets any reasonable notability guideline and adheres fully to WP:BLP. Casey Abell 00:07, 8 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, we don't delete articles for violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, unless that cannot be fixed (Please remember that WP:ATT is superceded by WP:NPOV). As far as I can see, there are valid multiple, reliable, secondary sources available on the subject and are provided on the article. I don't see how this fails WP:NEO either. (Sum of all the views on this AfD presented by the participants) The delete arguments are unconvincing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pakistani sentiment[edit]

Anti-Pakistani sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I submit this article for examination and possible deletion owing to strong violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:ATT, WP:NEO. Even though several sources have been provided, none of them attribute to the assertions made in the article, which are grossly biased and original research. Rama's arrow 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if after reading this article for the third time I would have come to the conclusion that this article conforms WP:NPOV I would have said keep, It is not the theme but it is the unbalanced way that makes me advocate deleting it AlfPhotoman 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extremely heavy cleanup. For every major nation Foo there is the anti-Foo sentiment, so the topic is valid. Contrary to the nominator, I see that the provided references contain such topics as "demonization of Pakistan", etc., although I can say nothing whether they match the wikipedia text. `'mikka 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hello I dont know If im allowed to post here, but I daresay I find it somewhat presumptuous of Ramma's arrow to mark my contribution for deletion simply because he found the content offensive, I have provided almost 33 different sources and I will expand the article in the future, if you have time help me do that, dont delete informative articles with sources just because you dont like them. S Seagal 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Statements such as ... zealous anti-Pakistan sentiment that exists in a majority of Hindus, Hindu chauvinism spurred by anti-Pakistan sentiment has grown and with it extremist religious parties like the BJP.[27] However anti-Pakistan sentiment is so deeply embedded into the psyche of the Hindu faithful that it is not confined to Hindu chauvinists alone do give an insight into your POV... this vitriol doesnt deserve an iota of server space on Wiki servers.. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I struck my delete above, If you want to work on the article you should have a chance to fix it. But remember, we are a tertiary source therefore WE DO NOT HAVE AN OPINION and no matter how we feel about a theme we must be neutral AlfPhotoman 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other countries have similar pages List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms. Are we going to delete those also? IP198 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Category:Anti-national_sentiment. There are many are anti-national sentiment articles. However, the article still needs to be cleaned up and follow a neutral point of view. Besides, to all those Hindutvaadis out there, on the same premise an Anti-Indian sentiment can be created so don't get so emotional :p GizzaChat © 07:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NationalORcruft.Bakaman 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is a valid one and one on which there appear to be sufficient sources to write a good article. However, the article as written has serious POV issues. In principle, it can be fixed and the existing sources (if not the current text) would provide a good starting point. Due to my ambivalence, I will remain neutral. -- Black Falcon 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I initially intended to remain neutral on the issue, but I just noticed that the article does not have a talk page. These issues should have been raised on the talk page first as an attempt at resolution and/or improvement. The topic is a valid one for an article, so I recommend keeping and starting a discussion on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a valid topic, though the current article is badly flawed. The article itself is already tagged for verification and NPOV checking. I've started a talk page for the article, and deleted the OR/non-NPOV section on AP sentiment in India. --Clay Collier 02:11, 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. Plenty of links, yeah. But do they qualify per WP:RS and WP:V? No. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnon Katz[edit]

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

Notability? This article was most likely created by sock of banned user Israelbeach, aka Joel Leyden, though checkuser proved inconclusive. Article links to Joel Leyden's personal website, the "Israel News Agency", as a source. Note that though linked to Hebrew wiki, there is in fact no article on the Hebrew wikipedia about Arnon Katz. A Google search for ארנון כץ in Hebrew seems to confirm that the gist of the article is more or less true; in fact, I would support an article about this person on the Hebrew wikipedia, if properly verified. But I'm not sure it belongs on the English wikipedia. I am uncomfortable with the fact that this reads like PR copy, and is not linked to from any other Wikipedia article. woggly 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, note that there is no article on the hebrew wikipedia Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and per thank you for your self-promotion AlfPhotoman 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure he's notable. He re-defined the term Zionism and is one of few people on earth who voluntarily pays taxes.--Nitsansh 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Katz, who operates out of Cyprus[4], is an ardent Zionist who rather than finding a creative, legal loophole chose to pay Israeli tax authorities 25 percent of his revenue

edit to add: Someone seems to take it seriousely...
      • Comment: Not everybody reading this has time to stop, think, and interpret your sarcasm. You started with the words, "sure he's notable" and most will take you at face value. Not to mention that your style of formatting is a bit confusing, as though three different people responded. --woggly 06:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, and voluntarily paying taxes does not assert notability. Nol888(Talk) 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N —SaxTeacher (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 1. It is transparent that this article for deletion comes not from what is fact and noble, but has its origins in Wikipolitics. Woggly, as she states in her own words, associates this entry with user:Israelbeach and as such targets this article and anything associated with Joel Leyden or the Israel News Agency as sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Personal vendettas have no place on Wikipedia. 2. Woggly states that this article should be included in the Hebrew version of Wikipedia and I agree. But what Woggly misses here is that Arnon Katz resides in London and his mulit-million dollars ventures are international in nature. 3. Empire Online links to Arnon Katz, so if we are to delete Arnon Katz, who founded Empire, we should also delete Empire Online. 4. Arnon Katz co-created the first commercial Website in Israel and then went on to develop online gaming on the Internet. That speaks of nobility, not politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Israelgeeks (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC). This is Israelgeek's 5th edit to Wikipedia.-woggly 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On point 3: User contributions for Israelgeeks wrote: 11:48, 8 March 2007 (hist)(diff) Empire Online (added Arnon Katz as co-founder) (top) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that everyone avoid Ad hominem arguements.--Nitsansh 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks reliable sources. --Michael Snow 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources = Globes newspaper article. Looking forward to seeing Arnon at Kinnernet. Kinnernetgal 12:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) This is Kinnernetgal's 7th edit to Wikipedia (comment added by woggly 06:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment Yes, let's avoid ad hominem arguments - see what Kinnernetgal has to say, not how many edits he's made.--Osidge 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just read about Wikipedia on Google News and joined. Will be attending the Kinnernet Internet conference in Israel. Looking forward to hearing Katz's seminar there. Jerusalemgold 14:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Joel, please stop with the sockpuppets. It hasn't worked in the past, and it will not work this time. --woggly 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Woggly, I don't know any Joel. But to meet a new comer here with a toxic dose of paranoia is not exactly what will attract people to Wikipedia. If you feel that I am a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet", please email me and we will talk. You owe me an apology. Jerusalemgold 15:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, this time I'll just block you.--woggly 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of links to prove that he is notable.--Newport 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks clear-cut to me on the evidence provided in the article.--Osidge 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable both in Israel and abroad as evidenced by dozens of Israel and international Google links. Pinkrosegarden 12:55, 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 keep, see also WP:PROF. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Shahidullah Faridi[edit]

Shah Shahidullah Faridi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. There are no secondary reliable sources to verify that this person is notable Sefringle 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment- "Died in relative obscurity." So, basically, to sum it up, he was unknown and unimportant? - (Ninsaneja 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do you see any secondary sources confirming notability? I don't see any sources, let alone reliable sources that prove notability.--Sefringle 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:WEB.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.83.254 (talk • contribs)

  • First of all, this is not web content, so WP:WEB is inapplicable. The appropriate guideline is WP:BIO. A search on "shahidullah faridi' turns up a handful of scholarly references and a larger handful of non-scholarly onessuch as. He seems to have some notoriety as a European convert to Islam before that was common. It's borderline, but it does look like there are sources for WP:V. Weak keep. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I meant WP:BIO. But with those links, it still fails WP:BIO guidelines, as geocities is not proof of notability.--Sefringle 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was, but it does indicate that he has some importance, which would stop me from nominating an article like this in the first place and instead look for sources. This scholarly article says:
In contemporary Pakistan, the leaders of the Chishti-Sabiri sub-branch continue to guide their followers along the arduous Sufi path (tariqa), armed with a spiritual genealogy that links them directly to the authority of the Prophet Muhammad. My work focuses in particular on the legacy of three important Chishti-Sabiri spiritual masters (shaykhs) whose lives paralleled the birth and development of Pakistan itself: Muhammad Dhawqi Shah (d. 1951), and his two principal successors, Shahidullah Faridi (d. 1978) and Wahid Bakhsh Rabbani (d. 1995).
Based on that alone, I think this is a significant figure. The lack of English language sources hampers us but does not affect notability. Though we are limited to a stub, it is likely that this could be expanded by someone with access to sources in Urdu or whatnot. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a number of published works, well over 1,000 GHits under his various names (Shah/Shaikh/Hazrat Shahidullah Faridi), e.g. following were in first 20 GHits Muslimedia College Reading List etc. Nom appears to regularly AfD Muslim subjects, but this one looks notable. EliminatorJR Talk 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those sites do not prove notability, and google hits does not prove notability. Muslimedia isn't even a reliable source. As for the other source, it is only a syllibus, and it doesn't even mention Shah Shahidullah Faridi's name.--Sefringle 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the bit that says articles by Shahidullah Faridi, "Baiat" and "The Spiritual Psychology of Islam"? Here's another from Ohio State University and another one from UNC. Seems to be a lot of scholarly references. Incidentally, why is a book review in Muslimedia not reliable? EliminatorJR Talk 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EliminatorJR's comments. Besides, if Google hits don't prove notability, why did nom use them as an arguement for why the article should be deleted? Curtmack of the Asylum 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Dhartung. And if I am permitted to comment: If there are other sources besides the weak ones in the article why are they referenced in the AfD and not there ? AlfPhotoman 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's got eight credits at Amazon.com as well. [6] RGTraynor 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as to "died in relative obscurity", many notable people have died in poverty, forgetten by their age, without losing their historical notability at all. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is for this reason I did not offer an opinion on the keep or delete. I don't know whether he is important or not just from that - but from reading the article I get the idea he wasn't. Not strongly enough to say even weak delete though. - (Ninsaneja 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • keep - the issue isn't whether the current article is referenced, but whether there is a likeliohood that references could be found. Indciations are that there are references to be found as evidenced by the results from Dhartung's research. -- Whpq 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per EliminatorJR. Robert Rozehnal, of Duke University, indicates in his paper "From Sufi Practice to Scholarly Praxis: Some Reflections on the Lessons of Fieldwork for the Study of Islam" that his forthcoming book will be discussing more about Shahidullah Faridi. Someone with access should also take a look at Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond by Carl W. Ernst and Bruce B. Lawrence. --Bejnar 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable per EliminatorJR and Bejnar. If we removed everyone who died in obscurity, we'd have to remove the Virgin Mary, Vincent van Gogh, Nikita Khrushchev, and a host of extremely notable individuals. --Charlene 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EliminatorJR, Bejnar and Charlene (sorry forgot sigs) --Webkami 11:12, 8 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. I believe there is a difference in opinion on the interpretation of policies here.

  1. WP:ASR is a logically fallacious argument in this case. We are not making self-references here in anyway. See the examples provided on the guideline page, and you will understand what I mean.
  2. Secondly, there isn't a little coverage on the topic, there is a lot of it, over the internet. Some of the sources have already been provided on the article. There are multiple, reliable and secondary sources available on the subject, we aren't merely quoting ourselves or providing primary references from Wikipedia or a mirror.
  3. Thirdly, article has the potential to develop and grow into more than a stub, redirection and merging would definitely restrict that.
  4. The article on Essjay controversy was later kept because of some of the reasons stated above. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community[edit]

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

This page provides little or no context. It attempts to cover a subject already covered throughout Wikipedia, but instead results in an article that can be summed up by the title, like "The community of editors in Wikipedia." Wikipedia doesn't need an article about its own community, plus, it might be a conflict of interest, as it is edited by the community. Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs)

WARNING Most likely that the article will be significantly expanded during the vote and many arguments will become invalid. (I will certainly put my efforts towards this). 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete.Delete of Merge. As nominator. Vote changed due to addition of material relevant to the topic..--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your nomination is a conflict of interest. An article about the community is highly notable, interesting, and expandable. --QuackGuru 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world is this a conflict of interest? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, does that mean the Wikipedia community isn't allowed to decide what to do with this? Who else, then? --Conti|✉ 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vox Rationis already stated above that: it might be a conflict of interest. Editing about yourself, the Wikipedia community, may be COI according to Vox, as it is edited by the community. Millions of editors is highly notable. --QuackGuru 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bizare Reasoning. In that case it should never have been created in the first place and should be speedily deleted - Munta 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with the nom. Not notable, unencyclopedic, conflict of interest, amongst other things. Not even sure what this article could say that isn't stating the obvious. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is possible to get into a highly convoluted tail-chasing argument here. That does not change the fact that while individual editors may be notable, the amorphous mass which is the community is not.--Anthony.bradbury 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is actually a CSD A3, since it's a substub with no real content right now. --Conti|✉ 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Millions of people from all around the world editing Wikipedia known as the Wikipedia community is notable. --QuackGuru 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia#This_is_a_free_encyclopedia_where_anyone_can_edit. The community maintaining an article on the community fails WP:AUTO, but as QuackGuru wrote, it's notable enough so we can't leave it deleted. There's also several links to this page on major Wikipedia pages, such as Criticism of Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia. - Pious7 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These links cannot neccessarily be used as proper grounds, as the links were placed there by the author of this article, shortly after the article was written.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable article that is also unencylopedic. A redirect may also be suitable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Attribution. If the Wikipedia community has not been independently discussed, analyzed, and documented outside of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. Ironically, the Wikipedia community is documented, to a degree. Dan Gillmor wrote about it on page 150 of ISBN 0596007337, for example. There are also this, this, and this; and the community is also addressed tangentially here. Uncle G 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel necessary to comment on the fact that you were able to produce the ISBN number and page number on the spot. Well done!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A1. So tagged. Change vote to Merge and Redirect. At the very least, it may be a candidate for something in project space, but I can't put a keep on here. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad article, but it doesn't answer a question that Wikipedia can't really answer - and where the answers are missing, well, that's what the merge is for. --Dennisthe2 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per CSD A1. Though the article has been expanded to a point where it no longer falls under CSD A1, the subject still isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Thus, I suggest a merge/redirect to Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've removed the A1 tag, expanded the article and add sources. I'm not sure if there are enough reliable sources to write a decent stub at this time, but there are many reliable sources which mention the term in passing. JoshuaZ 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Changing position to Keep given that the community as a whole has recieved a notable reward.[7] JoshuaZ 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1. Do I need to say more? Sr13 (T|C) 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge. There are many secondary sources that we could use to improve this article. There is media coverage almost every day. There is also lots of attributable information. This could easily be a good/great encyclopedic article. However, it may fit better if gets merged into Wikipedia. Sancho (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are a few ways in which Wikipedia has been analyzed/criticized as a social networking experiment, but that should be addressed in Wikipedia itself (or Criticism of Wikipedia) before being split off. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Meno25 04:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While certainly there are concerns with NPOV regarding something that is relatively close to home, and there are going to be some users who want to stack the books, the subject of this article is itself not inherently a problem. Wikipedia is notable, and one aspect of that is the people on it, or the "community of Wikipedia" . Now it could belong on Wikipedia as a section of that page, but I think there is enough information on this subject that this would have to be a spun-off sooner or later. As it stands now though, this page is minimal in terms of content, so I don't mind too much if it's deleted now, but I wouldn't say it is a problem to include the subject on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recursive and too self-referential. Perhaps an article like this could be written but I don't really see it here. It's just not a good base to develop from. WP:CSD A1 sounds about right. Pigmandialogue 07:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There just aren't going to be enough reliable sources to make a full article out of this. I'd say merge to Wikipedia, but what's to merge at this point?--Cúchullain t/c 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) There's enough material now to merge now, but I still don't think this deserves its own article.--Cúchullain t/c 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - self-referential cruft. MER-C 08:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self reference Ulysses Zagreb 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia help pages, policy and guidelines explain the detail. The community aspects of this article are just stating the obvious. Munta 10:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article now contains notability in its own right. I'm still a little unhappy about the article stating the obvious but the new information fits best here - Munta 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...if we delete Wikipedia_community then what happens to us? Do we disappear into nothingness? And if we're not here,we can't delete Wikipedia_community so it remains,which means we're here to delete it... This could be very tiring :) Lemon martini 11:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wierd topic, not really sure how it could be expanded or made into a coherant subject without extensive, pointless self-referencing. Regardless of the outcome, this AfD might need to be linked in BJAODN. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redundant. Already covered in Wikipedia. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it acts as a reference to serious minded people who wish to dedicate a little time to monitoring the quality of the articles, it can also act as a guide for people who wish to get involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Self-referential and non-notable. Clearly unencyclopedic. WjBscribe 20:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been asked to reconsider my opinion. It remains unchanged. The fact that those who edit Wikipedia have received a notable community award should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article but does not confer notability on the "Wikipedia community". There is absolutely no need for a stand alone article and the combination of very weak notability and self-referencing makes then article especially undesirable. WjBscribe 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ASR. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:ASR and all the above. Nol888(Talk) 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Merge or Delete with Wikipedia, it covers an aspect that should be included in the main Wikipedia article. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary self-reference, and for lack of content. At present, it's best placed as a subsection of the article on Wikipedia, with the possibility of recreating a separate article in the future if there are enough notable things to be said about the WP community, as separate from the site itself, to make an article. *Dan T.* 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-referential and non-notable (per User:WJBscribe). ElinorD (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self reference is a style issue not a reason for deletion when we have verifiable well sourced content. Please actually read WP:SELF Also note the presence of a notable award to the community. JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've seen information that reflects the idea of this article all over the wikipedia introduction sites. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so? JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per unnecessary self-reference, lack of content, and notability concerns. --Insineratehymn(talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self reference is a style issue not a reason for deletion when we have verifiable well sourced content. Please actually read WP:SELF. JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A valid encyclopedic topic, necessarily based on external links. Although a childish initial stub, has potential for growth. many deleters seem to confuse a wikipedia article with a wikipedia namespace article. "Wikipedia community" is most definitely a notable and intriguing subject: it is not just a bunch of graphomaniacs, dominatrices and trolls. It is also strikes me as quite ridiculous that Wikipedia article says next to nothing about those who create it. `'mikka 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your remark a bit offensive, as I have been here at Wikipedia for a while, and I do know the difference between Wikipedia community and Wikipedia: Community. I did not nominate it for the subjects validity, but for the ability of the subject to be covered. This would also, as I said, entail the subject to write about itself, sparking a conflict of interest...I have changed my vote to a "delete or merge" {above}, as this information should have a little coverage, but the it does not need an article...--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-referential and unnecessary.-- danntm T C 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge with Wikipedia - So it's not a speedy anymore, but how much could and should be said about the Wikipedia community? I think a paragraph in Wikipedia about this would be perfect. --Conti|✉ 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge with Wikipedia per Conti. Not enough here for a stand-alone article. – riana_dzasta 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge with Wikipedia The information here can always be merged. Sr13 (T|C) 02:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Changed vote due to new information, etc. A merge with Wikipedia would be in the best interest IMO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikipedia and/or English Wikipedia (anyone considered the fact that different language editions have very different types of user communities?) I don't know how much we can write about the subject without slipping to the original research territory - and besides, while the website is notable there's rarely need to make a separate article about the user community either (we've deleted these before)... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break: Warning[edit]

The Wikipedia Community article has significantly expanded since the original nomination. Most votes has nothing to do with the current article. --QuackGuru 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge I could see this being needed in the future, but right now I think we can say all the same things this article does with the Wikipedia articles we have now. Seems needlessly split. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:ASR. --Coredesat 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing argument. --Coredesat 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete My opinion hasn't changed. This article can't really discuss the Wikipedia community. There is no specific Wikipedia "community". Wikipedia is too large a body of work to have a community based around it's use (unfortunately or not) and the article does not tell us anything we can't discover on the Wikipedia page or Criticism of Wikipedia page. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh Merge. It's about Wikipedia, merge anything useful into there. Shenme 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Wikipedia article is already very long. We've already broken off Criticisms of Wikipedia and the lack of space was a reason that Essjay was not merged in. JoshuaZ 04:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think significantly expanded is too strong, but I do support the intent behind the ongoing expansion, and support a relisting if further changes are made. FrozenPurpleCube 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt I will end up expressing an opinion on this matter but I have a few thoughts:
  1. Encyclopedia Britannica has articles about their editors[8].
  2. An article being a stub is not a reason to delete
  3. I actually disagree with a number of the points the article makes, and take particular offense to us declaring ourselves Time's man of the year. The point of that nomination was much more about MySpace and YouTube.
  4. Much of the article is POV. Just because you can source one point of view does not make it not a point of view.
  5. Just because an article is poorly written is also not a reason to delete.

If pressed, I'd probably lean delete, but for now, I just had some food for thought.--CastAStone|(talk) 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still Delete or merge.See above.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia. Nothing worth merging – Qxz 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly cited and notable. Will most likely be expanded upon even more. Smee 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Still delete That's significant expansion? Overwhelming the sad little five sentence "article" with 10 sources does not make the topic any more notable nor the article any more worth saving. Wikipedia is notable, yet that does not mean that every individual aspect of Wikipedia is itself notable. The "Wikipedia Community", while known in Wikipedia's circles and surely worth mention in the Wikipedia article (where it already is mentioned), it is not notable enough for its own article. Add to that the self-referential and unencyclopedic nature of this page, and I can't see any valid reason to support keeping it here, and there's nothing there worth merging into Wikipedia that isn't already there. I also must say that I quite object to the keep-vote "campaining" that's going around--it's typically considered quite inappropriate to harrass users to change their "votes" in AfD's, and it rarely warrants the expected results. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep Uh... can -any- of the "Delete" people please address what in policy dictates your deletion comment...? as stupid as it sounds, the "group" now passes muster for WP:BIO and WP:ATT, so is a Keep. Again, another thing that will only grow more notable in time, beyond that notability that already passes muster. What is this demented urge to scrub all articles about/possibly about Wikipedia editors...? - Denny 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, does any other Web site have a Wikipedia article on its community, separate from the article on the site itself? I don't know of any, and there are many Web sites that have communities surrounding them. *Dan T.* 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because others don't get the RS/stuff that counts to pass WP:ATT doesn't mean anything. How many websites in the Top 20 on the Internet even have communities beside us? Millions of people, active stories all over the media... this is/was inevitable and will only continue. one month, a quarter, a year, two years from now, when the press and notability about the people that build the encyclopedia continues to build, will we not talk about us because it's navel gazing cruft as the person below says? or will we be NPOV and dispassionate about ourselves as we are supposed to be about everything? - Denny 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ten independent references? Would that all stubs were so sourced. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is navel gazing cruft. AniMate 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This crap with the self-referencing has to stop. The Essjay controversy was a little notable, granted, but this is purely for the trolls enjoyment of another article to vandalize. — Moe 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projectify or Merge or Userify or Delete , the "Wikipedia community" has essentially got 0 notability outside of the world of Wikis. This article does have merit though and would make a nice page if projectified to accompany Wikipedia:Wikipedians under the title Wikipedia:Wikipedia community. Short of that, merging into Wikipedia makes sense or userification into the article's creator's userspace. Shy of those options I would say delete. (→Netscott) 05:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's enough to say to warrant a separate article. Everyking 05:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wikipedia or Delete because there's not enough notability specifically on the community and, even if there was, there would be WP:NPOV issues with only the community editing the article. The only thing that has changed, in my opinion, is the increase of vandalism in the "see also" section to promote this article. Seriously, what does this directly have to do with wiki? - Pious7 07:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-referential original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you explain what [{WP:OR|original research]] is in the article? Also, as I have pointed out before WP:SELF is a style issue, it says nothing about not having well-sourced, well-cited articles like Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales. JoshuaZ 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing but self-referencial original research as said by Moe Epsilon. --Johnny89 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you explain what [{WP:OR|original research]] is in the article? Also, as I have pointed out before WP:SELF is a style issue, it says nothing about not having well-sourced, well-cited articles like Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales. JoshuaZ 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The synthesis of tidbits of outside information is practically the definition of original research. Yes, there are sources - great. But these sources don't support the article as a whole, just small parts of it. Recreate when multiple reliable, independent sources piece this info together. Delete as long as its Wikipedians who are doing it. Picaroon 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. The article is only a few days old, so I suggest we watch it a while and see how it turns out. People who have concerns can contribute and suggest changes. If it is not considered suitable in a few weeks/months, nominate again. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many secondary sources available to improve this article. SmokeyJoe 01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to project space. As an article, it looks like it must fail WP:ATT until some later time, and it is far more mired in conflict of interest issues than other Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia. It could always be moved back in the future if it looks like it is possible to properly source it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any useful content that isn't already at Wikipedia, where it belongs. Sub-articles are normally only created when the relevant section on the main article becomes unwieldy; this is not the case here, so there's no reason to move that information out into its own article. -- Vary | Talk 13:36, 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 no consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Usamah[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only sourced mentioned is youtube Sefringle 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The 6th hit on Google for his name is this story from the UK Daily Mail (major newspaper) titled "Radical Cleric praises Bin Laden". EliminatorJR Talk 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had my filters for certain domains to try and generate more localized links. I still don't see how this is wholly notable, though. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it looks like the article has been vandalised. The original story included quite a few links to notability, but the allegations of the Dispatches programme, etc. have been removed. I have restored this information and added the above references. Comments? EliminatorJR Talk 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UK media coverage. Catchpole 08:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per above. --Meno25 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable UK media coverage. StuartDouglas 11:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while agreeing that Usamah has some notoriety which attributes him notability this article contains unreferenced citations (in fact most of the article consists of unreferenced citations) and I am afraid that they have to go or be referenced under WP:ATT. If after that there is still an article worthy to be kept is something that I tend to doubt AlfPhotoman 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guy's got 18,000 hits on UK Google [9]. In addition to the ones referenced above, here's one from Fox News [10], one from Somali Radio Live [11], one from The Scotsman [12] ... etc. This one references the recent uncovering of the plot to behead a government minister, where the arrests were made in this fellow's bailiwick [13]. His notability is growing as the news bulletins come in. Ravenswing 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject has been involved heavily in the press, as outlined by Ravenswing above, and certainly is notable as a result. - Erebus555 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited the article some more, and removed most of the NPOV and unattributable information. EliminatorJR Talk 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Erebus555. -RiverHockey 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. This is a clearly notable cleric about whom articles have been written by multiple major news outlets. --Charlene 07:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the improvements are sufficient to make the article fair and balanced, the quotations though, especially as Usamah says they are taken out of context, should be additionally referenced though. AlfPhotoman 16:50, 9 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 Esto perpetua. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esto Perpetua Award[edit]

Esto Perpetua Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be multiple independent non-trivial references to establish notability. Otto4711 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting raw numbers of Google hits is not a proper method of determining notability. The majority of those hits are either from sources affiliated with the state of Idaho (and thus are not sources independent of the subject) or are trivial mentions in articles on other topics. The award itself is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. Otto4711 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete per nom. That's 55 unique G-hits. Just FYI, Ulysses, by our standards, 200 Google hits is pretty pathetic. If it was twenty thousand hits, that would be more significant. RGTraynor 19:01, 7 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! 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit Shares Tamil Substrate[edit]

Sanskrit Shares Tamil Substrate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is almost 100% original research without attribution, only of use to those who are familiar with the linguistic study of these two languages. Prod removed by author. JuJube 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:OR. Furthermore, although this is not of itself a deletion criterion, it is virtually incomprehensible to anyone without a training in linguistics.--Anthony.bradbury 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the author admits that it is OR. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is paradigm study on linguistics which has vibrant research ongoing i have set an external link to the site as well.I would request u to contact me for any queries @ [email protected]. I would like this to be screen page for those interested to go further deep into the area of research in such or similar linguistic study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghavan26 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment I'm struggling to understand what you're saying but if I get the gist of it, I'm afraid I'll have to tell you that such an article is inappropriate for mainspace. Consider putting it on your userspace. JuJube 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. original research, and virtually incomprehensible (certainly, unencyclopedic style) --Miskwito 02:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Miskwito 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankly, I'm not sure that someone with a degree in linguistics could make much more sense out of this page. It seems to be proposing Tamil etymologies for a variety of Sanskrit words, which is something different from a substrate in linguistics. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only OR but bordering on nonsensical. Tzinacan 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do visit this page in Wiki which is related:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit


Please mail me if u have specific query just before u intend to delete now i am yet building the page. [email protected] Substratum, in linguistics, a language that influences but is supplanted by a second language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum There is no substratum language influence of sanskrit towards any dravidian languages except word borrowings whereas Tamil has influenced heavily on the root and stem of Sanskrit .Infact this makes me and many other linguist feel that Sanskrit is the varient of Tamil/Dravidian or proto-X languages.I have gone further to prove Sk did not evolve from any dialect but set as a high definition language of communication established in mantra and tantra text for divine communication and propitiation elsewhere in my discussions. It is really disgusting to watch some comments above that this is non-sensical without a serious debate with me .It shows the poor knowledge of the moderators.Since the topic is on linguistics some linguist should deal this issue in the spirit of equity.

Would you like a link to this AfD to be posted on, say, the talk page of WikiProject Linguistics or Linguistics, to encourage Wikipedia's linguists to weigh in? Speaking as someone who's relatively knowledgeable about linguistics, I can assure you that the discussion will not go any more in your favor. But as you wish --Miskwito 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do give it a chance.I am not hurting anyone here but i am being hurt and repeatedly by words.If u link please tell me where should i click on to see the views and debate on further if required to hold the article. I would accept higher level discussion in the area and Topic please show me the link where this topic will be posted---Let the topic get its due share in justice. Infact what i am discussing in the article is just not simple etymology or word matching i have tried re-discover entire syllable system that is truely an indian experience which could have parted its way into middle-east and europe and probably an out-of-india theory.The structure of word formation in sanskrit from its base language the purpose of the same is taken up.Remember Lord Krishna in Bhagvat Geetha declares he is Sawman among vedas .I believe there is specific reason for this when compared to the statement made by the author in TOL about syllable elongation and higher order clusters and categorising it as Isai(Sawma)Tamil. The examples are only Indicative and a whole lot of words can just be picked and using the methodology retrieved as Tamil and this exercise is on .This article will serve as a eye-opener to those in the field of Tamil-SK research.

"i have tried [to] rediscover..." - so you're performing original research? Unfortunately, original research is not permitted on Wikipedia; you have to back up what you write in articles using reliable, independent, published sources. --Miskwito 03:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscover is nothing but discovering what is already accepted/partially accepted/critiqued.It is a building process Bold textthrough paradigm induction .There no question of invention here it is only a study process and scientific evolution.Science itself evolves and has no perfection.As Einstein puts in time and space theory.Orginal is nothing but conjeture evolving into perception with a group supporting it and stands alone as accepted in the world for a time period or coexist with diametrically opposite view and even exception.Quoting some accepted principles presupposes some group with like minded supporting an argument.Such support is had from the linguist i referred in the group external link i have given at the bottom of the page.Also wiki has an article on sanskrit substrate the link i had given at the top of the page where there are various authors with diametrically opposite views.Encyclo can be more meaningful if it accomodates ringside views as well rather than majoritarian views.What is an accepted may not be orginal at a point in time or across spaces.

This is a serious discussion. Please refrain from doubletalk and newspeak. JuJube 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,I couldnt get u here is it addressed to me?please state the context.Thanx
Regards
RV


  • Delete or userfy. This is original research, and no matter how useful it is original research does not belong on Wikipedia. --Charlene 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include:Students and Professors like in this article will benefit and appreciate the explanation. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/25/90I16/index.xml?section=topstories.As like in this article, author explains the etymologies differently . Thanks for reading the link. . My name is Sridharan Jagadeesan. I read a lot in wikipedia on any topic.
    • There is absolutely nothing in that link that has any relevance to Tamil, Sanskrit, substrate languages, or the etymology of Sanskrit words. It's just an article in Princeton's newspaper about a professor, specializing in comparative linguistics and the Classics, who makes his students enthusiastic about linguistics. I'd also like some clarification: are you the same person as the creator of the article, or are you someone else? --Miskwito 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did forgot to mention in the princeton professors article, pls click the link "joshua katz" , there you will find that his latest interest is in "Sanskrit " eytimology.
Here is the brief:
Professor Katz is a linguist by training, a Classicist by profession, and a comparative philologist at heart. He is particularly interested in etymology, which he views as part of the history of ideas. In addition to his wide-ranging Harvard dissertation, Topics in Indo-European Personal Pronouns, he is the author of numerous articles on literary, linguistic, and cultural subjects, ranging from Hesiod to Catullus, from Tocharian phonology to Hittite morphology, and from Greek badgers to Roman testicles. He counts among his honors the President's Distinguished Teaching Award (2003).
Recent work includes '"Sanskrit sphij-/sphigí:- and Greek phíkis"' (in A. Hyllested et al., eds., Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV [Innsbruck 2004], pp. 277-84); "The 'Swimming Duck' in Greek and Hittite" (in J. H. W. Penney, ed., Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies [Oxford 2004], pp. 195-216); "The Indo-European Context" (in J. M. Foley, ed., A Companion to Ancient Epic [Malden, MA 2005], pp. 20-30); "To Turn a Blind Eel" (in K. Jones-Bley et al., eds., Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 5-6, 2004 [Washington, D.C. 2005], pp. 259-96); "Reconstruction, Cultural" (in K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed. [Amsterdam 2006], vol. 10, pp. 389-93); "The Riddle of the sp(h)ij-: The Greek Sphinx and her Indic and Indo-European Background" (in G.-J. Pinault & D. Petit, eds., La Langue poétique indo-européenne: actes du Colloque de travail de la Société des Études Indo-Européennes (Indogermanische Gesellschaft/Society for Indo-European Studies), Paris, 22-24 octobre 2003 [Louvain 2006], pp. 157-94); "Erotic Hardening and Softening in Vergil's Eighth Eclogue" (with Katharina Volk, Classical Quarterly 56 [2006], 169-74); "The '"Urbi et Orbi"-Rule' Revisited" (Journal of Indo-European Studies 34 [2006], 319-61); "What Linguists are Good for" (Classical World 100 [2007], 99-112); "The Origin of the Greek Pluperfect" (Die Sprache, in press); "On the Regularity of Nasal Dissimilation in Anatolian" (in press in a Festschrift); and "The Development of *sm in Hittite" (in press in a Festschrift).
I am some one else.
No one is disputing that there are scholars researching etymology and Sanskrit (although I didn't realize Katz was one of them, so thanks for pointing me to the link). But that doesn't really mean anything, because this article we're discussin is on, as far as I can tell, Sanskrit and Tamil being related in some way (though it's hard to tell what the article is saying). This is not an accepted view among specialists and linguists; if you wanted to include it in Wikipedia, you'd have to back it up with sources--sourced that directly relate to the specific topic of Sanskrit's relation to Tamil. You'd also need to cite sources for the examples given in the article to illustrate or defend that point. Right now the article reads like pure original research--like the article is the forum where someone is writing a paper to defend a view they've come to on their own. There's nothing wrong with conducting original research, of course, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, and unless you can show that the article is not original research, it doesn't belong here. --Miskwito 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many books and authors who support the view that Sanskrit is related to Tamil and some that suggest that it emanates from Tamil or its Proto-X language.If Wiki is suggesting that the thesis needs to be accepted by wiki recognised panelist then well it is another matter.Even the fact that Sanskrit is Indo-european is questioned by some authors leave alone its linking with Tamil.I have also given a link here which is suggestive of contradictory views in the area.The debate at the national and international arena is on.My work here is only carrying the opinion held in a logical manner and furthering such original works and opinions.I still strongly feel wiki should retain the article if needed with appropriate Tag suggesting that it is view of the author or the like

Then cite some. From reliable, published sources, cite evidence to (1) back up the specific claims of the theory being made in the article and (2) demonstrate that this is a view held by more than a handful of fringe theorists. For every one example of a scholar who believes Sanskrit is not Indo-European, but instead Dravidian and related to Tamil--and has written this in a reliable, published work--I'll give you fifty who would say that view is lunatic, and who could back their claims up with centuries of accumulated historical linguistic evidence. I doubt many of them would even be aware that this theory you're pushing even existed. So provide actual citations from reliable published sources to back up the claims made in the article, and, furthermore, to demonstrate the notability of the theory. The fact that some people believe it isn't enough to establish its notability, there needs to be evidence that a large number of people are aware that the theory even exists. I'm not sure why I'm still arguing, though. This clearly qualifies for speedy deletion... --Miskwito 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I think I see what you're saying...you're comparing the enthusiasm the professor inspires in his students with his novel approach to the enthusiasm this article will doubtless inspire in laymen reading Wikipedia with its novel approach...a novel approach consisting of original research, unsubstantiated/unreferenced claims, dense linguistic terminology, and incomprehensible broken English, all poorly-formated? I don't mean to be insulting here, but if no one is even able to read the article, it won't do much good at educating them. Even if that weren't the case, of course, it's still original research, and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia, whether it's true or not. --Miskwito 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No,. What I indicated through the Princeton University Press releases/articles here is that this article needs higher level (linguistics) discussion/attention of people link Johusha katz . Readers , needs innovative apporach, especially in contrast and commparable views. How do you all say it is Original ? I am learning.
  • Speedy delete It is best described by a not very nice word trash. Presence of such nonsense on WP lowers its quality as a scientific resource Al-Bargit 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If one doesnt understand a particular subject/object there are 2 ways he/she expresses it 1.Pray(worship) 2.Trash. But a person who do not understand it but tries to get into it starts with a positive note.I hope good sense will prevail.

Below is an extract though out of context here it would be better readers know prima-facie on what we are discussing .The Only Living Classical language of the world.

This is How Professor George Hart(Professor of Tamil at the University of California, Berkeley, since 1975 currently holder of the Tamil Chair at that institution. ) had to lament " It seems strange to me that I should have to write an essay such as this claiming that Tamil is a classical literature -- it is akin to claiming that India is a great country or Hinduism is one of the world's great religions. The status of Tamil as one of the great classical languages of the world is something that is patently obvious to anyone who knows the subject. To deny that Tamil is a classical language is to deny a vital and central part of the greatness and richness of Indian culture. " On a request from a Tamil Counter part to write an impression on Tamil.Albiet Now Tamil is Declared as a Classical language by the Indian Government.

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

The result was delete all. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storbergsmasten[edit]

Storbergsmasten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Jupukkamasten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fårhultsmasten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gungvalamasten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these articles are virtually identicle, and none of them seems to have any real notability. Wikipedia is not an FCC database of broadcast towers (one exists on FCC.gov) It's hard to imagine that these articles will ever get past stub stage, and there is a broad consensus to delete such articles on masts. Note that these are already listed on List of masts, so no further merging must be done. Descendall 01:10, 7 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 08:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday event[edit]

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

The article is indiscriminate per WP:NOT, and largely Original Research. The study of future events is known as future studies, and the study of existential risks ("doomsday events", TEOTWAWKI, "end of the world", etc..) is covered on Wikipedia in risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth and human extinction. Note the articles first footnote, which uses dictionary definitions to craft an original research meaning of the term "doomsday event". Note the list of scenarios, which lists anyone who happens to have used the term "Doomsday" (indiscriminate). Note the lack of scholarly sources or standard sources usually used in this field of study. A list of existential risks is already handled with better sourcing and discussion at risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. "Doomsday event" is one of many informal popular culture phrases without clear definition or meaning that should re-direct to risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Stbalbach 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this is quite similar to World War III, which was recently up for deletion. I agree that the entire premise is based on original research, gossip, and individual impressions of the subject, rather than a truly encyclopedically conceived article. This irritates me, but the overwhelming consensus on WWIII was to keep it in spite of these obvious issues, and I expect the same reasoning will be used here . . . . -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge nd redirect to Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth (which really needs a better title) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already had two or three titles, all of which have proven problematic to various users. If you have any other suggestions see the lengthy talk page discussions. -- Stbalbach 19:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eschatology deals with religion. See End of the world for how "end of the world" stuff is organized on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but propose a merge if you want. And next time, if you want a redirect, be bold and do it yourself, or propose it on the talk page. AfD is not for that purpose. Beyond that, the page does have references, so I'm doubtful of the original research claim, and as the subject itself is the subject of much discussion, I don't see it as grounds for deletion anyway. If it's not sourced now, there are sources that could be added. And I'm sorry, but how is the subject fit the indiscriminate criteria at all? There is nothing whatsoever at indiscriminate which fits this page. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indiscriminate because anyone who happens to use the term "Doomsday" is the criteria for inclusion in the article. It's just a random list of people who say Doomsday. Meanwhile people who don't call it Doomsday are not included because they never use the term. Thus the article has no focus or meaning. Conceptually, the concept is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your usage of indiscriminate is not the same as meant by WP:NOT#INFO, which actually describes specific kinds of articles that are not allowed, as opposed to what you're talking about, which is more about the quality of the article. I don't agree that it's even true about the page, but it's not necessarily true, so it's an issue for clean-up. This is a content dispute, and while somewhat complicated, it's not a deletion issue. Merge would work just as well, though I think with the variety of possibilities, something of an organized effort would be appropriate to handle the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redir. /Blaxthos 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect where? I see at least three possibilities in the nomination alone. And I could probably be convinced of others. FrozenPurpleCube 06:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be your proposal, but there are other possibilities, so who knows what Blaxthos wants? FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a specific phrase, and redirecting it to any of the general subject suggested would not make sense. The term has been used since the 1950s, and there are good sources. This is not OR. WW III was just recently kept, and correctly so. Same here.DGG 09:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good sources?? First of all, World War III has no sources whatsoever. Second of all, Doomsday Event is the definition of original research. While the lead does have good sources that properly define the term, the rest of the article is made up oof examples that certain editors think constitutes a "doomsday event." None of the subsequent sources use the term. This is synthesis of primary sources into a new interpretation.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this actually brings up a pretty complicated issue. The subject matter that this article touches on seems to be strewn about and duplicated across a number of articles, most of which don't really link to each other. To say that this is 'bad form' is a bit of an understatement. The way I understand it, the various "End of the World" scenarios can be lumped into two main categories. Those that deal with a more religious, philisophical or othewise nonscientific approach covered in Eschatology and then the topic of physical and material threats to the Earth as described in scientific literature. The ones brought up thus far in this discussion are Existential risk, human extinction and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. There appear to exist other articles that touch on the subject, as well. What we've got looks like a web of forks, and it's a mess. What really needs done is to have this set of articles overhauled as a whole, merging and redirecting where appropriate, to eliminate redundancy and duplicate information as well as present the associated topics in a more logical manner. For the time being I would propose to merge this article with Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth but the real solution to this problem involves a lot more work. Arkyan 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, there's some complicated issues here, there are religious concepts and scientific concepts, and a lot of words for basically the same thing. Perhaps there needs to be something discussed on the Village pump? FrozenPurpleCube 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That might be wise. This issue really goes beyond the scope of what this discussion can cover here. Arkyan 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been dealing with this issue for years. End of the world shows how it is organized. There is religion, science, myth, fiction, cosmology and philosophy. It only gets complicated when editors keep spawning new articles that duplicate what is already been done, calling it various new names. Doomsday event is, conceptually, a duplication of risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, thus the purpose of this AfD. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, risk for civilization, humans and planet Earth was created March 11, 2005 while Doomsday event already existed on October 29, 2004. So risk for civilization, humans and planet Earth is the duplicate, not the other way around. - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, what I meant was "Doomsday event" and "risk for civ" didn't start to overlap in scope until recently, after "risk for civ" had been around a while. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as I said, perhaps you should have proposed a merger instead. Not sure if I agree, as I don't know that this article has to be a duplicate, and honestly, I like this title better than that one. But it's not really a deletion concern. However, I do think it might be worth setting up a Wikiproject or discussion on it over all. I put up Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#End of the World as a start, though I don't know that it's the best place, and it'll probably end up elsewhere. Might even need a short-lived Wikiproject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. The problem is there is no commonly accepted name for these events, so we "make one up" on Wikipedia. But every time someone makes up a name: Doomsday event, TEOTWAWKI, End of civilization, End of humanity, End of the world -- someone else comes along and says it is original research and/or the articles doesn't encompass what the title says and/or the title is poor and a new one is needed etc.. it's been an endless cycle of discussions for years, in AfD's, Rename requests and Merge requests. At this point I think existential risk might be the best place. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd say the problem is not that there is no commonly accepted names, but that there are several commonly accepted terms (Besides Doomsday, Apocalypse, Armageddon, Cataclysm, Holocaust, even World War III and Ragnarok might well be considered generic terms in some lights), each of which may have a slightly different meaning, and the articles themselves do have some differences in them, but the problem is not in the existence of the articles themselves, but the lack of a cohesive group consensus on how to cover this subject. As I think more about it, I would suggest trying to establish some kind of Wikiproject so you can bring people together on this subject. I would also recommend not going the AfD route, that's rarely conducive to getting people to work together, as it comes across as a slap in the face. And no, I don't recommend existential risk for the article title, as it is an obscure term, and not in common usage. I would prefer something closer to the vernacular. Feel free to title the Wikiproject with that name though, should you wish to go that route. FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, the problem is large and complex enough to warrant a Project. It surpasses talk page discussions and AfDs. It involves probably a dozen articles or more and will require some serious work to figure out all the pieces, the best way to assemble them, and establishing consensus. I'm not even sure I want to take it on, it's like herding cats. This AfD shows how wide and disparate the views are, and how strongly people feel about it. -- Stbalbach 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMHO the Doomsday event article is far, far superior to the Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth article, which, in addition to being horribly named (despite racking my brain, I can't think of any articles with a 7 word title but no parenthesis) is stuffed chock full of much more original research than Doomsday event. The doomsday event article is basically a list of other WP articles that share this common attribute: I think of it like a standard list article, an highly useful annotated roadmap to other articles that share this common attribute. Doomsday event could certainly be improved: the references section is terrible, and it would benefit from citing references to the use of the term, but it does not need to be deleted. UnitedStatesian 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and start merging now that this problem is identified. I agree with UnitedStatesian, a 7-word title (with a comma even) is overkill, and I would never find it. However, I have in the past actually read the Doomsday event article. Comment I'm curious by the way, which of these similar articles is linked to the most? Davidicke 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article used to be called End of civilization, but then we got caught up in what does "end" really mean and what does "civilization" really mean. It really is a very difficult problem, "Doomsday event" has the same problems, even worse really. "Doomsday" is purely subjective and not a neutral descriptor. We all "think" we know what we mean when we say "Doomsday", but it only makes sense in the context of its usage, it doesn't work as a standalone objective statement of fact.-- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Doomsday event" is the term usually used when referring to a destructive event like this (see Doomsday clock too) and it clearly isn't original research. If anything risk for civilization, humans and planet Earth should be merged into Doomsday event. Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "usual" term, that is the problem, there are lots of popular culture phrases that are problematic. Existential risk is probably the closest we have to a neutral and accurate term. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to improve. Off and on I've been doing newspaper and magazine archive searches (with the intent of rewriting note 1 to provide detailed info about usage history) and have collected raw data tracing the usage of this term back to the mid-1980s. "Doomsday event" is an umbrella term describing a class of events of a certain kind, and it has at least 2 decades of history. As such it warrants an encyclopedia entry, especially an entry in the most comprehensive and up-to-date encyclopedia in the world. As for the proposed merge, I do not believe that "doomsday event" is equivalent to "existential risk." A risk and an event are two different things. I think the article can be improved, but I do not see it as mostly original research. It is simply a descriptive list of specific sorts of events which fall under the umbrella term "doomsday event," and it links back to many of the detailed articles on those specific sorts of events. -- WikiPedant 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect I agree with the nominator. However, regarding merging, I'd hesitate before copying any potential OR to a new article. Xaxafrad 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (see 2nd comment below)[reply]
  • Comment I, as much as anybody else, I think, would like to see the various disparate articles mentioned throughout this discussion merged or otherwise coordinated some how (maybe a template, rather than a dab page?). However, AfD is not the place, maybe Talk:End of the World would be better (the title is similar to History of the World, and they've had a similar discussion over title issues). Is there a seconder? Xaxafrad 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded! It would be nice to have all of this in one or two centralised articles, but that editorial issue is usually better resolved on talk pages rather than AFD. -- Black Falcon 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd comment I've browsed around the other articles related to this topic, and compared a few specific doomsday events (the first 4 or 5 of the natural events) to the article Risks to civilization...yada, yada, and this article really seems redundant. If End of the world is taken to be the top-level concept, all other pertinent articles seem linked therefrom within 1-3 links (Eschatology, Doomsday, even End of civilization), therefore I would clarify my vote as Delete, replace with redirect to the Risks article, unless significant material is unique to Doomsday event (which should then be stylized with prose). Xaxafrad 06:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss the fate of the article on its talk page (or, if a merge is desired, the talk page of its intended destination), per my comment above. -- Black Falcon 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Originally commented on article's discussion page: It seems logical to look at precedence as a way around the confusion.. One choice with a similar, broad range of scenarios, implications, and so on, would be the Origin of life article.. rather than reinvent something. It seems like this article successfully entertains the spectrum of theories and topics, and appears to act as a good start for the topic tree as a whole, and might be helpful in setting up an appropriate framework for the "End of Life" (or whatever name it is given).. WarBaCoN 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep not even a question, its a valid article. Mghabmw 07:05, 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 keep. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Park High School (Newark, New Jersey)[edit]

Science Park High School (Newark, New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has been created without authorization from the school that it represents. It has been discovered that a lot of the information is false and could be overall inaccurate. As the original creator of the page I have been requested by the administration to delete the page. KB. Sciencepark 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not really sure which way to vote. As for "authorization from the school that it represents" - except for the logo they don't have to authorize it. It doesn't appear to be a copyright violation. What do they mean by authoriztion? I make make a decision if I can see what the inaccuracies are. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could see COI based on your username, but there has been so much editing since you created it, this should be negated by now. I really can't see a reason to delete this besides "its unauthorized" (most articles here aren't authorized by their subject), so I am provisionally voting Keep unless I see a real reason. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply To Comment I never was authorized to make it, I only made an original one in my spare time and served as a "moderator" as others expanded it. However it has been seen by the administration and supposedly people out of the school who contacted the administration as true. As the person who has admitted to being the "moderator" for the page, I do not want to held accountable for any inaccuracies that I make accidentally, or any that anyone else makes that I cannot prove or disprove. The school has requested that it be removed and though it has gone beyond my direct power at this point, I am still being indirectly held responsible for it. Sciencepark 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia pages don't have moderators. I hope the school can understand that you have no control over, or responsibility for, the page. While all pages here should aim for accuracy, the wise reader will be cautious about how far s/he trusts them, especially if sources aren't given. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that there aren't moderators, however I always have looked back to the page to ensure that things aren't going too far in the wrong direction and I always expected this to happen eventually now that Wikipedia is quite popular in the school.Sciencepark 02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I couldn't care less what your school administrators think. They have absolutely no authority over Wikipedia. WE decide whether to keep or junk the article. I see nothing wrong with the article, so I don't want to delete it. If there is a copyright problem with anything, and you know about it, please change it -- that is, exact wording that may have been taken from the school Web site or some school document. If the pictures in the article belong to the school itself, please take those off. If you know of anything inaccurate, please change it. If the school administration knows of anything inaccurate, someone on the staff should change it. Otherwise, with all due respect and trying to be as civil as possible, your school administration may go to hell. We are independent of them. Noroton 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I have to agree with Norton that your school administration has no authority to demand that an article on them be deleted. If anything whatsoever in the article is untrue or inaccurate, they of course have the right to remove or change it, but aside from that (and copyright issues), they have no say in the matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Would they really punish you just for creating the article? That would be absolutely ridiculous of them. --Miskwito 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also note that doing things like this is completely unacceptable, but I'll assume good faith and presume that you weren't aware of that at the time. --Miskwito 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: What a joke. Wikipedia now needs "authorization" to create articles? And you all of a sudden jump in with a "request" from the school to remove the article? I laughed when I read that. As it stands, the article contains a wealth of information that asserts its notability and has some damn nice images to accompany it. It needs sources, however, but that should not be hard to find for such a prominent school. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I am in 100% agreement with the above editors who assert that this school's administrators have no authority over Wikipedia, I do have hesitations over how this article is sourced and if this school is notable enough to warrant an article. As it stands now most of info is unsourced, while the article looks ok and seems to be pretty NPOV it remains a problem. Still this is no reason to summarily delete a decent article. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do agree with your concerns over the article's content (though not notability itself), but those are cleanup issues, not deletion ones. I'll tag it for cleanup right now since somebody else agrees though. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Your school has no ability to determine what articles Wikipedia has, and as High Schools in general are found to be notable, so there is no reason to delete it, since it is a real school. [14]. The content of the page is borderline, as I do think there's plenty of unsourced material that needs cleanup, but inherently, there's nothing wrong with it. Now as regards the school administration's actions, I assume you are a student there? Well, I do think your user name might be worth changing, but I don't see that many edits to the page from you. Did you edit under a different name? Doesn't matter anyway, if your school administration is pressuring you, your best bet is to see an attorney or your local ACLU. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article will greatly benefit from a thorough cleanup. No one owns this article, and I will certainly volunteer my efforts to improving it and ensuring that no one is "blamed" for its content. Alansohn 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe School is not necessarily punishing me or pressuring but when the content was discovered, I was asked and I explained how I created the page and occasionally made edits. Therefore, being the only in school source so far of the page, I was asked to just delete it all for the time being. In terms of username, this was created today due to the fact that the NPS IP address is blocked at my school from edits so I have edits from various IP's from wherever I worked on it at that moment. I will suggest that someone of authority in the school revise it such as a teacher or administrator however my instruction was to have it deleted. If this is rejected by you to be deleted I don't think that I am at fault because I did what was asked, but I must follow through with my order to avoid any problems. Sciencepark 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, okay. Well then, you can always point them to this page as proof that you tried to do what they asked, but the Wikipedia community refused. --Miskwito 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup immediately. Marginally notable high school. Sciencepark is probably under attack by dim-witted school administrators that don't understand what Wikipedia is and think they're being H4X0R3D...that is if high school administrations and their comprehension of technology hasn't changed any since I was in high school. Thunderbunny 04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close. The article seems okay to me. For the nominator- Wikipedia is independent of other organizations. Unless the article in question is a black project, it cannot be simply told what to do. Also, factuality is not an adeqaute argument when nominating an article. Flaws can always be removed- that's why we use a wiki! Possible bad-faith nom. I concur with the elaborate argument placed by Noroton as well. Sr13 (T|C) 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but... I suggest making sure it is thoroughly sourced with reliable sources like local newspapers. Anything that is not or can't be sourced should be removed from the article. --Aude (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup including sourcing. A good chunk of the article is unencyclopedic "insider" detail that can be discarded, which removes most of the WP:ATT challenges. The basic information about the school should be easily verified. As Sciencepark (talk · contribs) has released his edits under the GFDL, they are now "ours", not his/hers, so the administration should be aware of this. Not sure if they think this is like a MySpace group or what, but we don't need their permission to write about them. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Since it seems that this will not be deleted, I did as said by Dhartung and cleared anything I believe to be insider information. I am hoping that this will not be considered as clearing the page since the majority has been removed, however I will suggest that someone with more knowledge of the school post to make a newer article if this does not delete (which seems to be the likely scenario here). Sciencepark 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks much better now. That's the way to do things, if material is unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, dubious, etc. Though some things, like ethnicity statistics, should also have sources. See Stuyvesant High School and Plano Senior High School for examples of how sourcing should ideally be done. But, the article is vastly better now. --Aude (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and caution those voting to keep to ensure that the vote is simply not knee-jerk to the demands of a school administration. Let's make sure the article is thoroughtly sourced and attributed. /Blaxthos 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, why are you saying that this article should be deleted exactly? Sourcing this article is a trivial matter, and in any case, not a reason to delete it. The content is not significantly objectionable in any way that I can see. Also, I think you'll find that the vast majority of high schools are kept, without regard to any actions by the administration. I do think that's a boneheaded thing to do, but it's got nothing to do with this subject. Finally, I think you should be advised, AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Numbers don't matter. Ideas and arguments do. FrozenPurpleCube 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable magnet school, and one of the top schools in the state. Find a new hobby. Silensor 05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; should be sourced, but certainly not deleted. Ral315 » 07:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mister Manticore, but please everybody, be civil! Telling school administrators to "go to hell" is unworthy of the Wikipedia community. ... discospinster talk 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wholly invalid reason for nomination. Almost Speedy Keep as it's essentially a bad faith nom by proxy (i.e. bad faith on the school's part, not the actual nominator). WilyD 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: While I'm a strong opponent on the notability of secondary schools, I must chime in with the rest in defense of the principle that the subjects of articles get veto power neither over the content nor the existence of related articles. I have no doubt that the high school's administration would have collective apoplexy over the notion that their social studies or English textbooks were subject to censorship by anyone named therein. Heck, if I was feeling bloodyminded enough, I'd forward a link to this AfD to the Newark media and see what they had to say over it. RGTraynor 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A lot of people here seem to be reacting to the circumstances of this nomination, specifically the suggestion that someone other than Wikipedia might have authority over what articles can be written. I understand where this sentiment comes from but there are cases where AFD does not have the final say—a salient example is WP:LIVING. If an organization makes a request to have an article removed because they believe it to be defamatory, we ought to take that request seriously (for both legal and perceptual reasons); we need to either source any potentially defamatory material carefully or remove the material (perhaps reducing the article to a substub in the process). However, in this case it's hard to see how this article could be construed as defamatory at this point. I think we should keep it and tag it as unreferenced, or at the worst reduce it to a stub. — brighterorange (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as far as it goes, if the High School had some concerns about the content of the article, I would support their bringing them up on the talk page, or if it's non-controversial, editing it themselves. I don't imagine anybody else would feel different. But as you say, there's nothing in this article that seems defamatory to me. Of course, we don't know what the school administration really said either, so it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naturally! I think the main thing I'm saying is that we shouldn't expect outsiders to understand the proper Wikipedia way to accomplish certain things, and shouldn't knee-jerk just because something isn't done the Wikipedia way. Some things (like protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits or very bad publicity) are in fact more important than our customs. — brighterorange (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, I just figured that people were venting steam, and as far as that goes, it's not as bad as the Daniel Brandt discussion. Now there's a mess. FrozenPurpleCube 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's simply nothing distinguishing this school entry from others. Precedent says keep. Christopher Jost 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. High schools may or may not be notable, but this one appears to pass notability (and there is a precedent). A school is not a living being so WP:LIVING doesn't apply to the basic premise of having an article. The principal or other administrators would be advised to review the page on a regular basis to ensure nothing actionable has been written, but they are somewhat naive if they believe they have the right to control this page. --Charlene 07:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From School Administrator: The comments made by some individuals within these responses are attempts to indicate tha we are asking for censure or to control this page, no one is naive and this is not the case. We just moved to this new location and have expeienced several issues. Individuals looking atthis schooland that included parents have called to ask about certain issues posted on this site which are student versions with misinformation of events or conditions here. We do not have a Web master who can spend time editing this page. We are working on our own new Webpage and must comply with district guidelines for posting and this takes time.

If an initial impressionof our school comes from an article on a site which appears to be a blog for anyone wishing to discuss the school then it can in our view be harmful to our students . There are other forums on the Internet for this and students may say what they choose there . Ihave read enough of the commentary to know that this isnot about what may be good for our school but hype about rights and censure and anything else one wants to say about our motivation . What is good for Wikipedia is an issue here and quite frankly the responsibility to act responsibly for this school is not yours.

  • In my honest opinion, what the students think about the school (besides the immature "Thiz skool suks" comments) should be a concern for the administration and interested parents. If I were a parent, looking for a school for my child, I would rather hear honest student opinions than what the school or school board says. This is similar to buying a product. The reviews of actual buyers are much more helpful and relevant to whether I, as the consumer, should buy the product than what the manufacturer says. I can't imagine the school posting controversies and problems with the school on the school website, but parents need to know those kinds of things. This is just an example, I'm not implying anything about the school being discussed: If a school has a problem with violence, parents need to know. Are they going to read zbout that on a school website though? Not likely. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For my part, were I a parent in that district, I'd be deeply concerned (although not in the least degree surprised) about a so-called educator with such a mediocre command of grammar, spelling and punctuation. I'd be extraordinarily concerned about any such so-called "administrator" who believes the Bill of Rights to be "hype." If the school was genuinely concerned about acting responsibly (provided this is really an administrator speaking), they would bust this yahoo back to janitor and take a good, hard look at the quality of their teaching. That aside, he's right in one thing and one thing only: our motivation is sure not about what's good for his school. Nor should it be. RGTraynor 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow! From this can we take it that "reverse psychology' really works, and that the best way in the future to keep a high school article is to say that the administration wants it removed? Edison 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the student who suggested this for deletion And I do not understand what reasoning you have to not delete it. I, unlike my administrators, am a supporter of the wikipedia project and I often spend time on the site learning about various things going link to link and having faith that hat I read is true. But after meeting with my administrator today for them to post the statement, I agree with reasoning that she expressed with me today; anyone can change the page with little moderation (someone in this forum said that there are no moderators), and the only changes that seem to be looked at are the deletion of mass information. For some time, there was a line in there that I did not read that attempted to compare Science to technology by boasting Technology HS's networking class against our computer training. There was one edit that I never even saw until looking back today that says "Pro's of Science High: None this school is a!!" that had lasted for a while. I do understand that what I submitted 2 years ago becomes your property, however I do not feel it is right for you to hold on to it if no one wants it. I am offended myself because with my simple request to ask you to delete it as per my administrator, you have twisted everything into a battle against free speech and the rights of Wikipedia. Someone before said that this could be related to a living person, and I agree. This is a school in existence that is having untrue, and inappropriate statements written about it (see history) and that is nothing suitable to publish by a public site. I am sure that someone monitors the "Wikipedia" entry here regularly and could afford to clean it up when someone tries to put anything bad on it, but I, as a senior, do not have the time anymore to deal with this as more people are becoming attracted to the page recently, and neither does anyone else in the school. So since we must be technical, I shall bring up the deletion policy issues with the article
    • Conflict of Interest: I started this article with an organization I am involved with and it has been edited by those involved with it and in competition with it in inappropriate ways.
    • Vandalism: This article is subject of constant vandalism with untrue information.
  • Notability: Schools in general are not notable. This one does have some significance, however there is no accurate history yet of the school on the page that explains the notability so there is no reason to keep it. The only thing on the page now is that it was in an old building and got a new one. There is more to it and until someone provides a history showing this, it should be removed because I am not the one who will write it. KMB Sciencepark 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in addition, I found it horribly wrong when I looked later in the day and saw that you referred to my administrator as a Yahoo because she was typing fast because I was becoming late to class meeting with her and helping to post it. The school does value education and what is being said on this page is "hype" about freedom of speech because you certainly would not want someone writing something malicious for the public to see regarding Wikipedia. KB Sciencepark 03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many editors in this debate seem to have allowed their indignation at the perceived hubris of these school administrators to overcome their reasoned, rational, natural civility. On behalf of all the Wikipedians who may not have time to return to this discussion and reconsider their hasty remarks, I apologize to the school administrators and anyone else who may have been offended by the remarks of these editors. However, I must point out that all contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GDFL and are therefore no longer the property of the contributors, and that the nature of wiki is such that vandalism occurs, but over a statistically-significant period, the actions of trolls are usually corrected by the gnomes or vandalism patrollers. Anyone who wishes to ensure the accuracy of any specific article is free to edit it at any time, and by creating a user account, can track contributions to that page to help combat vandalism. Alternatively, if vandalism is frequent, semi-protection or protection of the page by a Wikipedia administrator can be requested. —Carolfrog 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment: Well if that service is available and suggest that you either have that protection available to the page or do as requested by me and remove it. I will talk to my administrator tomorrow because the major issue is that students or maybe not even students but someone is posting things that even I know is not true. We have had incidents but ... well just read the history, the things that have been written on the page are not nearly a representation of the issues here. I'd think that there were people carrying guns around the school perimeter waiting on corners for people and trying to target students. I will not sit here on a regular basis with my mind just wondering "What is on that page" because in general you need more safeguards in the wikipedia. When I started using it, I do not think there were many users particularly in my community. Now there are alot more and not all of them have good intentions when using this site and I predict that you will sooner or later see that with more people placing opinions this site will become very inaccurate. I strongly advise all people who continue to vote in favor of keeping to review the school history. Me and someone else whom we have not tracked down are consistently fixing the page, and I am done with it after tomorrow. But this is my last day commenting on behalf of the school so I strongly suggest a thorough look at the quality of maintnance and protection on this page as well as others. KMB Sciencepark 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's only apparent claim to fame is being in the top 20% of high schools according to one magazine? Not notable. (Though I personally think all high schools should be listed, that ain't the policy at this time.) --Hobit 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment on my part Well, while certainly referring to someone as a Yahoo or anything else is a question of civility, the lack of professionalism in trying to hurry and type a reply is itself a problem. If you don't have the time to send a thoughtful, considered response, then the wise thing to do would be to refrain from responding. It's basically an extension of the 10-second rule when you're angry. If your alleged school administrator wanted to convince people, it would behoove them to do a better job of responding effectively. Sure, anybody can make a typo, or forget to zip up their fly, accidents happen, pobody's nerfect, but there's still a responsibility to be professional. As to your claims of a reason to delete this article, they are not convincing. The COI problem in this case is minimal. If you can't make edits to it without bias, that is your problem, not the articles. The same goes with Vandalism. It happens all over Wikipedia, every day in thousands of articles. So far, it hasn't destroyed the world yet, and I doubt it ever will. But it will likely remain an ongoing problem, not just for this subject, though high schools with the typical immaturity of teenagers do attract a lot of problems, but for almost any of them. If your school administration thinks there is a problem with its students though, perhaps it might be worthwhile to consider instructing the students as to the value of integrity, honesty, and not making vandal edits to Wikipedia. This could be a great educational opportunity, teaching responsibility, not just complaining about a problem. Notability is still in discussion, but High schools are generally accepted as being notable. FrozenPurpleCube
    • Quite. Vandalism is a pervasive problem, but that's not a Wikipedia problem; it's one of society at large, and there are more sensible, reasoned responses than forbidding people from saying anything because you're afraid that they'll say something you don't like. Following that, given the bent of this school's administration -- provided their stance is, indeed, being accurately reported -- they do seem to define "inaccurate" as meaning "information which makes us look bad." Are they really trying to tell us that an inner-city high school in New Jersey is free of violence? RGTraynor 14:21, 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) 2007-03-11 08:43Z

No Broker Fee Apartments NYC[edit]

No Broker Fee Apartments NYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD and "needs-wikification" tags removed by creator (only contributor) with no improvement. It's a fluffy bit of OR or a personal essay or how-to of some sort on its face, completely uncited. Also trying to weasel in or support several bits of blatant spam (repeatedly speedy-deleted) from the author. DMacks 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uncited, unverified original research.--TBCΦtalk? 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely original research and biased at that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - badly written, bad title, blah blah blah. I started looking around though and we don't have any article on apartment brokers period, which I'm thinking maybe we should. Just an article telling what they are what citys you find them in, mention brokers fees, etc. It seems like a notable concept worthy of some explanation somewhere. - Arch NME 09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It does not cite sources, biased, and mostly OR. The title is also terrible. It also reads much more like an essay then a Wiki article. - Century0 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in addition to the above comments, the article also reads in part like a how-to guide. -- Whpq 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR, how-to guide, not encyclopedic. —SaxTeacher (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The title makes it sound like a blatant ad, and the body reads like an essay you'd find on a timeshare sales pamphlet.--AgentCDE 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced original research essay, and a unencyclopedic how-to guide.-- danntm T C 02:40, 8 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary; since this was already completed the article will be deleted. Carabinieri 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish expressions in common English[edit]

List of Spanish expressions in common English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've outlined my concerns on the article's talk page. In brief: contains multiple different types of Spanish words/expressions: those fully integrated into English, those virtually only used by people who speak Spanish, and those used by people who don't speak Spanish, but who recognize the words/phrases as "foreign" and unusual. Subject is almost by definition original research, as it deals with words and expressions supposedly often used in English but that won't be listed in any dictionary because they're not standard English yet. Page is also almost completely unsourced. Miskwito 02:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subject is almost by definition original research. It's the kind of thing that people will drop by and add random things to as they hear them, with no concern for verifiability. So I'd also say it also falls under three kinds of WP:NOT. Dewrad
  • Delete as original research. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--TBCΦtalk? 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete. bibliomaniac15 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is original research and not suited for Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikionary might take a stab at it? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as an appendix. Seems more logical to shift it there instead of fully deleting it. If transwiki-ing is not viable, then delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kyra~(talk) 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ¡Dios Mio! this article has mucho original research and would be muy difficult to validate. Hasta la vista, el listo. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if it's suitable for Wiktionary, failing that, delete. Anything claiming that these expressions are common is likely OR, and if we leave it just definitions then it belongs in Wikitionary.--AgentCDE 01:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete per comments above. It is impossible to make this anything other than POV and OR. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete as original research and WP:WINAD. Sr13 (T|C) 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki then delete. There's no rush in deleting this, so it could be a courtesy to our sister project to transwiki this before deleting (transwiki usually occurs within 24 hours of adding {{dicdef}}). -- Black Falcon 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, that sounds like a good idea. I added a {{dicdef}} tag to the article, above the AfD one. --Miskwito 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE: the article has now been transwikied. Hooray! --Miskwito 20:25, 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. Veinor (talk to me) 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Holt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, although has some sources, none are both independent and reliable. For example, the sources include the author's angelfire homepage, some fans geocities page, a general yahoo search cache. This may be a part of the main contributor to this trying to drum more notable alumni for Columbia Pacific University- all of the editor's edits are related to that or to alumni. I had prodded but the prod was removed, so here we are. JoshuaZ 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete [er nom, fails WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 03:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails to meet notability. A basic Google/Yahoo search reveals very little to assert the notability and all the sources are not reliable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral I removed the prod, in order to encourage discussion. I am not sure of the significance of the papers being in the U Iowa library. This is not usually done for trivial authors, but I don';t recall it every being discussed here. There does not seem to be any academic criticism of her poetry, judging by Proquest, & almost no libraries have her books besides a few of the most comprehensive collections , judging by Open WorldCat. DGG 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - although the article is a bit POV in places, the subject appears to have written and published a fair bit, with ISBNs and everything. Having researched many subjects online for which there is a dearth of information, I am not prepared to write off something because references aren't able to be found online. It strikes me as a bit too substancive to delete. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A rather cursory search of Amazon.com shows that her numerous publication credits are, in fact, legit. RGTraynor 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a number of these publications are with vanity presses or are self-published. For instance, her novel "Mirage" is published by PublishAmerica, who are a vanity press. PublishAmerica will publish just about anything you send to them. JulesH 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I would have been happier if there were independent critiques. We have to consider that poetry is not mainstream anymore, therefore hardly mentioned in Sunday supplements which makes a plus. Creating your own publishing company on the other hand could be an euphemism of self-publishing .. hey I don't use any vanity publisher I publish myself ... so I'll stay with weak keep unless there is new evidence in one way or the other during this AfD AlfPhotoman 17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Publication of a person's work is not grounds for notability, publication of articles about that person is. In this person's page, all I see is a long list of publications by this person, and not a single one about this person. Additionally, this WP entry was created by User:Paul Hartal in order to bolster his list of (questionably) notable alumni of Columbia Pacific University, a defunct diploma mill. See Talk:Columbia Pacific University, specifically the section about notable alumni, for details. Skinwalker 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to meet notability guidelines, with at least some mention of her works and a Pulitzer Nomination. Certainly a locally well known author.  The Steve  10:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. JoshuaZ, Skinwalker and Company,
Your continued call for the deletion of the article on Rochelle Holt is not only unjustified but even bizarre. Moreover, explaining the proposed deletion because, in addition to her MFA from the University of Iowa, she pursued further studies at Columbia Pacific University (CPU), [15], [16], is part of an orchestrated academic witch hunt. Since when is learning a crime? The defamation of CPU is part of the irresponsible misinformation phenomenon, which is described quite well, for example, in M. Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie (ISBN 0-671454927; Dr. Peck is best known for his best seller, The Road Less Traveled).
Your prejudice is unprofessional and should be brought to the attention of fair-minded Wikipedia administrators, contributors, as well as Wikipedia donors and in fact everyone concerned about the quality of the Internet, the advancement of knowledge and intellectual freedom.
The article on Rochelle Holt in its present stage clearly shows and documents that she is notable on several accounts and highly eligible to be featured in Wikipedia:
She is listed in the International Who’s Who in Poetry, London: Routledge, ISBN 0948875593, and her biography is featured at universities and literary publications. Please see Reference Section in article.

She received numerous professional awards, grants and honours, including nomination for the Pulitzer Prize. She is regarded by her peers as a major poet and a significant science fiction writer. A Reader’s Digest survey ranked her first among American poets. In addition to her numerous and well-received books, she published over 2000 poems in about 300 periodicals and magazines, and gave over 700 public readings at universities, schools, hospitals, libraries, bookstores and other places. She has originated a new literary genre within the category of the poem-novel, recognized by experts as a significant and innovative accomplishment. Her plays have been performed in theatres. As a publisher she has advanced the works of other professional artists. Among other things, she has published important scholarly work about the life and art of Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Lawrence Durrell as well as others and contributed to the development of literary theory.

I went through uncounted entries in Wikipedia, and I am amazed to see how many of them are basically just short notes about people who cannot really reach the level of notability as Rochelle Holt does, and nevertheless they are featured in Wikipedia.
Paul Hartal 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence given that she was ever actually nominated for a Pulitzer Prize (only 3 are considered to be nominated each year, though anyone can fill out forms, the Pulitzer folks have a strict definition of what "nominated" means). In fact I can't find the category for which she was nominated (small press prose category?). Amazon ranks seem to indicate no sales and websites look questionable. --Hobit 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are a tremendous number of links, but all of them I can see are either just selling a book, written by the article's subject, or other trivialities. Most are also not reliable whatsoever. I see no reliable source (let alone multiple) that could provide for a comprehensive article. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep pending Clean up. Marginally notable if the claims in the article are true. (Hartal's arguments aren't persuasive: if Wikipedia had an entry for all 4000 poets in the International Who's Who in Poetry...) But the article needs severe cleanup to fix the WP:A and WP:NPOV and spam problems, there's a lot of resume-burnishing stuff in the article that's not notable, and it sounds from Paul Hartal (talk · contribs) that there's a systematic campaign to resuscitate fellow alumni of Columbia Pacific University through Wikipedia that other editors should be monitoring. Incidentally, Texas (among other states) lists degrees from CPU as "fraudulent or substandard", and thus prohibited for various uses under Texas law. The use of "fraudulent or substandard" degrees in violation of this prohibition is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas.[17] "Diploma mill" would violate NPOV, but mentioning the controversy on this page should not be an issue of BLP. After the cleanup to delete the self-published books and claims that might not be true, there may not be notability any more, in which case there would be a case for deletion. -- TedFrank 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It now appears that the most notable facts about Holt, such as her "Pulitzer nomination", are invented. -- TedFrank 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. She is clearly a notable author, though her main Wiki advocate hurts his own cause with his approach. The University of Iowa is a reputable source. It reports that "Holt was co-publisher and editor of Valhalla Literary Magazine through Ragnarok Press, which received three Coordinating Council Literary Magazine grants". It also reports that she was a "protege of Anaiis Nin". It also confirms "Her joint publication with Virginia Love Long in 1985, Letters of Human Nature, was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in the small press prose division".[18] I would also point out that reputable universities do not keep papers collections for any random author. Clearly, she is within notability guidelines. Please do not let the mess of an article and the aggressive campaigning of a contributor destroy our perspective. Vassyana 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeutralKeep. The individual in question is seems to be a prolific author and is seems to be notable independent of (or perhaps despite) her affiliation with CPU, having been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and a Rhysling Award. Even if her PhD does not count, she still has an MFA. The article needs cleanup and a POV check, but the subject of the article is seems notable. I have begun some cleanup work on the article by formatting all the cached references per <ref></ref>. -- Black Falcon 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the argument made above by [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana] that "reputable universities do not keep papers collections for any random author" is accurate. Universities are very picky in such matters as they often use the fact of possessing such collections to promote themselves. A university like the U of Iowa would not keep a collection of papers by just anyone. -- Black Falcon 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have changed to "neutral" given the information presented in comments below. -- Black Falcon 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. New York University has my grandfather's paper collection.[19] I'm hard-pressed to argue that Nelson Frank meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. We still haven't seen the "Pulitzer Prize nomination" verified. -- TedFrank 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, according the the source you provide, NYU has a collection that includes some of your grandfather's personal papers. The collection is not called the "Papers of Nelson Frank". Apples and oranges. On the Pulitzer information, I have found she was nominated by a collection of academics, but she apparently did not become a finalist. Only finalists are "official" nominees by Pulitzer standard, so I struck out that comment above. Vassyana 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the source for this nomination? It would help a great deal. Thanks! Skinwalker 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think to keep the reference because it did not validate the claim to being a Pulitzer nominee in the functional sense (that is, one of the three finalists for the appropriate prize category). If you're still interested in the source, please let me know and I will dig it up again. Vassyana 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're way off topic here, but they are referred to as the "Nelson Frank Papers" on the rare occasions when they are cited.[20], [21] I don't even see any indication that anyone has cited the Rochelle Holt papers.[22] Are we really going to have an article for everyone Anais Nin wrote a letter to? -- TedFrank 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to point out that there is no such thing as the "small press prose" Pulitzer Prize, and the name "Rochelle Holt" does not show up anywhere on [23]. This claim is likely to be a fabrication. Skinwalker 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment."Division" is jargon for the origin market. Think of "small press prose" as comparable to "mid-market periodical", as an example. "Categories" are the types of prizes awarded. Vassyana 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, though the Pulitzer website does not list anything approaching a prize that fits these categories, nor does it categorize its literary prizes by market type (beyond fiction, nonfiction, and so on). More importantly, Ms. Holt's name is not listed anywhere on the Pulitzer website, even though they list all nominees after 1980 (before the text in question was published). Skinwalker 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She would not be listed unless she was one of the three finalists in the appropriate category. Those are the only official nominees. That is why I decided to strike the Pulitzer claim. Vassyana 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The sources and claims look good, but the Pulitzer nomination was in the "small press fiction" category (a very minor thing) and I am having a hard time establishing the validity of many other claims, despite such impressive sources as, er, an Angelfire user page. In fact, about half the references were either off-the-page advertising or did not actually support the statement for which they claimed to be references. Looks like the author did a Google search and tried to find a home for every link. I find it really hard to accept this author's contention that a self-published author with with fewer than 200 unique Googles is a titan of the literary world. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulitzer nomination was in the "small press fiction" category (a very minor thing) A non-existent thing, actually: they don't categorize that way. Fiction, Poetry, General Non-fiction, etc: very broad categories, really, and nothing to do with publication size. Even their journalism awards don't do that. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The resume-inflation of the Pulitzer claim and the vanity-press publication definitely tripped my nonsense detectors.--Calton | Talk 04:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I am moving this keep comment by an IP user who posted at the very top of the article here.

As the author of ten books, most of them for sale now at Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.com, former editor at Prentince Hall Publishers and Teacher at Ohio University, the University of Hawaii and The New School for Social Research, I feel I know much about literature. I have read much of Rochelle Holt's work and I feel she is a very competent writer. She is an excellent poet and can write fiction and nonfiction. Her work should not be removed.

Each reader can decide whether or not her work deserves attention.

Maryanne Raphael, Writers World Web site: www.authorsden.com/maryanneraphael 209.244.42.59 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment. The quality of Holt's work is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The important thing is notability determined with reference to external sources. Also authorsden.com is a well-known site used predominently by self-published or vanity-press-published authors to network in order to promote each other's work. Like Holt, this poster's works seem to be predominently self-published. JulesH 11:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Finally coming to a conclusion on this one, although it took a while. The Pulitzer nomination turns out to be totally unimportant and possibly fabricated. The publications seem to be entirely self published or vanity-press published. Having been an editor for a small press does not confer notability. Regarding the entry in the Internaional Who's Who in Poetry, it should be noted that there are two books of this title. I can't verify her inclusion in either, because both are insanely expensive. One of them is a vanity publication by the International Library of Poetry. Jonathon vos Post's web site, much as I respect it as a useful resource, is not a reliable source and cannot confer notability. The only thing that suggests notability is that a university has a collection of her work, which honestly doesn't seem like enough to me. We have no idea why they decided to collect this work, and there are no secondary sources discussing in what way the work is considered significant. JulesH 11:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - after reading the discussion here I have to say the article fails the smell test. I would also suggest locking the Columbia Pacific University article until the neutrality and factuality problems there are sorted out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:44, 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, "fair use" in Wikipedia isn't the same as fair use legally. Essentially, this page is using hundreds of fair use images just to show what they look like, with no critical commentary on any specific image, which certainly won't pass Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. - Bobet 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems[edit]

Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Fair use" gallery. And the scare quotes are very deliberate. —Cryptic 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. {{scoutlogo}} specifically says that a scout logo image is only fair use if it's used "to illustrate the Scouting organization in question" (bolding in the original). The images are clearly not being used that way here. --Miskwito 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold for now, until the Wikimedia lawyers weigh in (and per NThurston below). Has someone contacted them? --Miskwito 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above. Plus, Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep, and explain your glib term "scare quotes". Chris 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cryptic was suggesting that the images were not actually fair use, by putting "Fair use" in quotes. And as I pointed out above, they're not fair use. What's your keep rationale, given that? --Miskwito 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evrik said what I wanted to say, before I got back, actually. Thanks, Evrik! Chris 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - galleries of FU media are not a fair use. --Peta 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page illustrates each of the organizations logos and allows the reader to compare them to the others. This fits within fair use. --evrik (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The image does not illustrate any "scouting organization in question" since it is in a photo gallery, not a page regarding a "scouting organization." It is a gross abuse of the Fair Use application. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: (edit conflict) I don't see how it does. The guidelines are very clear that the logos can only be used to illustrate the scouting organization in question. They're not doing that here. Here they're in a gallery that shows what all the logos are, which isn't the same thing as a picture of a logo being used on an organization's page to illustrate said organization. As far as I can tell, this very clearly falls outside FU. --Miskwito 04:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:FU. Resolute 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. /Blaxthos 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting gallery, and has the potential to be a useful annotated gallery/encyclopedia article. However, my non-lawyer legal interpretation is that use as a comparison between the Scouting organisations in question is a definite legal no-no. From the looks of things, all images are already located on the papropriate pages, and if not, they are categorised at Category:Scout logos, so there will be no potential loss of information. If a verified lawyer can say that use in this fashion is legal under "fair use", keep. Failing that, reluctantly delete. -- saberwyn 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saberwyn, this gallery represents a year and half of very hard work on the part of many dedicated Wikipedians. The original idea (my own, so of course I want to save it) was based on Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms specifically to show the unity, the uniqueness and the local evolution of a very simple emblem to one that represents so much history and pride. This year is the 100th anniversary of Scouting, and I would be happy to implement any changes to save this article. It is no longer just a gallery, and as you say has the potential to be a useful annotated gallery/encyclopedia article. What can we do to make this something able to be kept? Any improvements and suggestions would be most valuable. Chris 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please explain how, by deleting this photo gallery, it will ruin the work? These should be placed on their respective articles, per the fair use agreement that you licensed, or on an article regarding scouting in general. If you can move these to a scouting-related article where appropriate, it would solve the matters. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • reply easily. The gallery (now the beginning of an article) is the work, and like the coat of arms gallery is a ready reference where the Wikipedian can see and compare 400 related emblems without having to sift through and open separately those 400 articles. It is useful in its own right. I have no objection to either merging this in its entirety to a related article, or building the existing article into a better one. Chris 06:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • plea to those voting to delete-instead of boilerplate deleting this, help us find ways to make it worthy of keeping. Chris 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I don't know how to save this article in its current form. The fair use rules for organisation logos (as I understand them) are that the logo should only be used to illustrate an article on the organisation the logo belongs to. Under the rules, using "fair use" images in this way is (to my knowledge) not permissable. I'll say that a sourced, externally verifiable text article about the Scouting logo would be one way to go from here, but unfortunately, I cannot see a way for this not to be deleted. It is a shame; being an ex-Rover it is interesting to see all the logos laid out like that (the only other time I'd seen it done was on a poster sold at the last World Jamboree), but my liking it does not trump copyright law. -- saberwyn 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support consultation of trained legal professional per Bduke below. -- saberwyn 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support hold Chris 07:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The question here is simply a legal one. Maybe it could be argued that these are illustrating their Scout organisation on a list of all such organisations in the world. Maybe it can not be so argued. There seems to be a feeling that it would be valuable if it was legal. As Chris has said this has been a lot of work (none of it mine) and this is an important year for Scouting. Can someone ask the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer to rule on this and in the meantime put this AfD on hold? A US based Admin not involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting would be best. --Bduke 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am withdrawing my delete nomination. I am not proposing merging every emblem into 400 separate articles (as someone indicated above), but perhaps put this in context on another major article, or use some of the images more extensively elsewhere. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as these violate fair use and like other galleries are easily accessed through Commons categories, which display them just as well as formatted article galleries. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment how then do we get it into the "Commons gallery" you speak of? Chris 08:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it is such a pity if this article will be deleted, but it currently does violate fair use. I would tell anyone who is interested in saving this article to email the Scouting and Guide international organization with a link to the article, to request permission to use the emblems. --Haemo 10:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - I recommending holding off on a decision while a) more information is gathered and b) we can work on an alternative. --NThurston 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This issue isn't just a legal issue. I think I'm on solid ground when I say that under US copyright law, the doctrine of fair use makes us perfectly free to have this article. If the law were the only issue, that's a non-issue. If this were Gallery of news media photos, forget it, we would be infringing on their right to exclusively market their product. But a gallery of logos of non-profit organizations should not be a problem UNDER THE LAW. It is, however, a problem on WIKIPEDIA. Our fair use policy is intentionally more restrictive than what we could get away with. This is because Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia. We only use non-free images under a claim of fair use when it is a necessity - we don't have articles that contain no free content. Sometimes, this is inconvenient. Sometimes it's annoying. I am a Scouter and have been involved with Scouting for 20 years. I like this article. I enjoy looking at it. But, for the ultimate goal of being a free-content encyclopedia, we sometimes have to make compromises and one of them is that we don't have articles containing nothing but non-free images. --BigDT 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - as an educational reference article its of use, but the suggested merger as above does make sense --portland12 20.04, 7 March 2007
    • What merge? The images are already used on the articles of their respective Scout or Guide organisations. --Bduke 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold/Keep for now. I've unfortunately forgotten the link to the relevant policy, but I'm quite certain that it's written somewhere: "Wikipedia editors are not lawyers. Wikimedia hires professional lawyers. In cases where a legal issue is in question (and/or disputed), leave it to them and/or seek their advice." -- Black Falcon 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have to call up a lawyer every time there is a policy question. At any rate, I don't think that anyone questions that under US law, this article is perfectly legal. But our policy is more restrictive than the law. --BigDT 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it has already been asserted that the page is legal. I think this is a useful point where WP:IAR applies in relation to the policy of there is a conflict with policy. The page is very useful in seeing the adaptation of a common symbol to each country's organisation.--Golden Wattle talk 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page may be legal, but no I've seen no real evidence that the page is allowed by Wikipedia's rules, which are pretty darn clear with regards to free use guidelines. --Miskwito 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IAR is policy - ie one of wikipedia's rules - and it states If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.--Golden Wattle talk 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Aaaaand I totally missed where you brought up WP:IAR there. Gah. Sorry. --Miskwito 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page is useful and is not a clear violation of any policy. The collection of the images together is itself helpful and useful for those interested especially for the many people who collect such items. To break among the many individual groups would, IMHO be sad. JBEvans 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Golden Wattle using WP:IAR. If it is not illegal to have these here, I believe we should keep them as they seem to have wide support. In this case, I think we should ignore the rules. --Bduke 22:20, 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, despite valiant efforts, it appears there's very little source material available. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fazal Mohammed[edit]

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

Trinidadian musical pioneer. Deleted as prod but restored on request. No opinion on the subject, but the article desperately needs sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can't find anything online, but that isn't surprising, given the time from (Trinidadian who died in the 40s). It points to our problem with sources, and the clear bias towards people from the developed world, with information found online. Guettarda 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is there any evidence of this person's existence? Looking at the edit history and searching for "Lord Fazal" makes me suspicious that at least parts of the entry are a hoax. ~ trialsanderrors 04:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's the father of Kamaluddin Mohammed[24] (prominent politician and cultural figure), Shamshuddin Mohammed[25] (politician and important cultural figure) and Moen Mohammed[26] (important cultural figure). Is he really notable as a pioneer of ghazal in TT? That I can't prove. Guettarda 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article in it's current form fails the policy on attribution; searching for information on the subject failed to yield any reliable sources to confirm the information within the article. Kyra~(talk) 05:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD AlfPhotoman 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some references supplied. There are some sources on Indo-Trinidadian music available. Google books has Helen Myers' Music of Hindu Trinidad. The Mohammed brothers mentioned by Guettarda are indexed in Myers' book, but Fazal is not. Nor does he seem to be listed at http://www.rafimohammed.com/ as the brothers are. Having said that, Nazir Mohammed (mentioned at rafimohammed.com) is not indexed by Myers either. "Lord Fazal", which appears to raise some eyebrows, is in fact a plausible style (compare "Lord Shaker", "Prince Buster"...). The article seems perfectly plausible and entirely unattributable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice find on the Helen Myers book. Yes, "Lord Fazal" is totally in keeping with the names used by calypsonians; coming from Aranguez, Mohammed would have been more creolised than would someone from Felicity, for example. Also with regards to Myers book - as Muslim devotional music I'm not even sure that they would have been a primary interest in a book on Hindu music. Guettarda 21:31, 9 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyal (deceased)[edit]

Adam Lyal (deceased) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page describes a non-notable street perfomer for a company which provides tours of Edinburgh. Street performer takes on the persona of a non-notable (though genuine) historical figure. Article explicitly states that historical figure achieved "little notoriety" beyond a few mentions of his execution in a local paper. Purpose appears to be self-promotional; links to myspace page and home page for tourism company. Irene Ringworm 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting one. The sources provided in the article qualify as OR. I doubt the this article can be sourced from actual sources. Also I think we have a clear conflict of interest issue. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Because I think sources can be found , though not on the web. This is a little tick because there's both an historical aspect and a current use as a legend, though neither are adequately sourced. This is an unusual article title: I have seen no other article which actually merits the qualifier "(deceased)"DGG 04:25, 3 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) 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment (to reiterate strong delete) There's no denying that the figure is legitimate. The question is whether a terribly minor Scottish criminal whose only notoriety is a brief mention in a handful of newspapers meets the notability requirement. The article is a wikified version of information contained at [27], a promotional website for a non-notable company that provides guided tours of Edinburg, Scotland. Irene Ringworm 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, both the historical figure and the modern role are verifiable but neither satisfies notability guidelines. Also agree with promotional/COI concerns raised above; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting projects you are personally involved in (the article's author is a director for Cadies Productions). --Muchness 04:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability /Blaxthos 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete parts about non notable C18 criminal and non notable tour company. However, numerous sources [28], [29], [30], [31] do confirm that Adam Lyal (deceased) stands for election as a candidate for Adam Lyal’s Witchery Tour Party regularly. Nuttah68 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As notable as a number of other criminals on wiki. But delete the promotional links. - Kittybrewster 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, article should be moved to Adam Lyal. No opinion as I'm not familiar enough with the subject to cast an informed vote. 23skidoo 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to Nuttah68 - a page previously existed for Adam Lyal's Witchery Tour party - this contained information about his parody candidacy for local government positions. This article was deleted as self-promotional. Irene Ringworm 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and per WP:BOLLOCKS: This is insane; a long-dead fellow where the article and the promoters themselves say was insignificant?? And news flash: blokes executed nearly two centuries ago can't announce that they're standing for office. How in the merry hell can the self-promoting antics of a local tour group define this guy's notability? Even on UK Google a directed search turns up less than 200 hits, and all for the actor. Now if people want an article for the actor, that's potentially defensible. But for the original? Not a chance. Ravenswing 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment consensus is that candidates standing in national elections (to call a Member of the Scottish Parliament a 'local government position' is inaccurate and potentially insulting) are notable whilst the campaign is ongoing. If the article was deemed self-promotional it should have been cleaned up, not deleted. As for 'news flash: blokes executed nearly two centuries ago can't announce that they're standing for office., to reply in a similar fashion, bollocks. There is nothing in UK law stopping this candidate standing for election as Adam Lyal (deceased). Nuttah68 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but it's also not the original Adam Lyal, either. Which is who the article is about. 12.33.238.82 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about the original Adam Lyal, the tour company and the political campaign. That is why my original comment included 'delete parts about non notable C18 criminal and non notable tour company'. I despair that some people are incapable of reading or following a structured thread. Nuttah68 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My original comment referred to a candidacy for a North Edinburgh council seat and was unaware of the ALWTP's Parliamentary candidates. My apologies to the Scots. Irene Ringworm 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the BBC there are over a hundred political parties registered with the electoral commission in the UK, of which the Adam Lyal Witchery Tour Party is one. If this party can be demonstrated to have the notability of, say, the equally parodic Official Monster Raving Loony Party I would recommend that it receive its own article - light on the history of Adam Lyal and his affiliated tourism company and heavy on the influence and activities of the party itself. Inclusion on the list as an officially registered party does not constitute notability. Irene Ringworm 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though intriguing. --woggly 15:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Current Location makes clear that the purpose is advertising. JBEvans 18:09, 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. --Coredesat 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Molaro[edit]

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

A bio about a host of an online interview program. No non-trivial sources given, Google news and books search gave 0 hits. Doesn't seem that notable for an encyclopedia. feydey 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:16, 7 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 article, userfied others as per request Gnangarra 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Australians by religion[edit]

List of Australian Catholics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Deleted
List of Australian Presbyterians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- moved to User:JRG/List of Australian Presbyterians
List of Australian Anglicans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- moved to User:JRG/List of Australian Anglicans

These lists are problematic since the inclusion of the people on the lists is unverified, WP:BLP states that the article should have a referenced entry that justifies the addition of a religion cat, and there are further guidelines in WP:Categorization of people - I'm assuming the same should be applied to people on a list. Delete. --Peta 04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom /Blaxthos 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the failure to comply with the policy on living persons; the information contained within the list can be conveyed equally well through categorization of the individual articles if the religious affiliation is sourced within the article as required by policy. Kyra~(talk) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless miraculously every entry on each list sprouts a verifiable reference. --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have cited my source for the inclusion of each entry on List of Australian Presbyterians, deleting one or two that had no citation. List of Australian Presbyterians was one of the first articles I created as a new Wikipedian (before I figured out categorization) and I used a Uniting Church in Australia 'Centenary' site as my source [32]. I request that if the page is deleted, it be userfied to my page for further reference. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the article is a copyright violation as a direct cut and paste. --Steve (Slf67) talk 06:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I guess you can tag it for speedy deletion on those grounds in addition to this nomination (and as I write I see you have). No worries, I'll just go to the original page for reference and categorization should do the rest. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a copyvio? Yes, one source is bad, but there's nothing to stop me adding more entries to this page and it will just be a badly-sourced page. JRG 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blatant wikified cut and paste from a webpage. --Steve (Slf67) talk 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can reference all but a couple of those people on Australian Anglicans (John Howard being one of them - if anyone can find anything related to this please let me know; Michael Kirby is another). I really don't have time in the next few days to do this, though - can you please hold this off so I can get these references for the Anglican article? JRG 10:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should only be kept if all the entries are based on accurate and attributable source material, particularly as this involves WP:BLP. I would also suggest it be kept only if the people on the list are prominent espousers or clergy, staff etc in the particular faith. Otherwise it seems to have little purpose other than an list of internal links or bunch of indiscriminate information. SM247My Talk 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my request? JRG 10:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes I did. You appear to have not addressed anything I have said though, the sum of which renders your request nugatory. See also Scott Davis' remarks below. SM247My Talk 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as useful list. At least a couple of these lists are already sourced and sourcing the others could certainly be done. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. These people are not notable simply by being eligible to be on the list, and I know a number of people who qualify for each list but are not on it. An incomplete list is not useful. Categories do a better job of "list of xxx people with Wikipedia articles" which is essentially what two of these are. The third is a copy of someone else's list of "notable Presbyterians", but that website neither provides references for the claims that those people are/were Presbyterian, nor for those people being more notable than all other Australian Presbyterians (and it's a personal view, not the UCA's official opinion). I would keep lists of people who are notable because they are/were Anglican/Catholic/Presbyterian (such as list of Australian Catholic archbishops, List of moderators of the Presbyterian Church of Australia). --Scott Davis Talk 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with changing this sort of thing to categories is that you can put anyone in the category, and there's no way of verifying if anyone is an Anglican on the category page. I've started to attribute sources to all of the Anglican people, and it at least provides evidence that the persons in question have been or are involved in that particular church or denomination. I agree that the lists are very incomplete, but the way to stop that is to fix them up, not to delete them. JRG 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update comment - for the List of Australian Anglicans, the persons' Anglicanism has been attributed in all cases to a source indicating their involvement with the Anglican church or their well-espoused Anglican belief; except for one instance, who was actually a Congregationalist and has been deleted from the list. I'm happy to add more people to this list, as I'm sure there are many more to be put in here. JRG 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have referenced the people in the list that they belong there (well done), and expanded the lead. There are still only 24 of them, so the list is clearly incomplete. The longer lead is still just as open - the correct reference for the list under that introduction would be the payroll for the Anglican Church, plus its membership lists. For example, Kim Beazley is not notable/famous/defined by the fact that he is a member of the Anglican church. He's famous because he was a politician. Ask five random Australians what John Howard, Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd have in common, and you're unlikely to find "they're all Anglicans" is the answer. They're all former leaders of the Opposition, and their politics are not defined by their denomination. --Scott Davis Talk 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we are to have a distinct categorisation, what do you suggest I change the lead (and/or the title) to? Rudd, for example, is someone who has distinctly called himself an Anglican (Howard and Beazley much less so) and would fit better in some sort of list. I don't want this list deleted, but I'm keen to work for something that is manageable and can be filled out, whereas I agree somewhat that it's a bit indiscriminate at present. JRG 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You must also add each one of those references into the person's article to source the statement that they are Anglican within the article, and to justify the category that is also probably there (if it isn't referenced already). That's WP:BLP for you! For example Douglas Stevens currently doesn't have a single source in his article to reference what he is and the entire article content should be blanked if the rules are followed to the letter. --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain that a list is different to a category; this list can be filled out and it will not be arbitrary to keep people (like Kevin Rudd) who have publicly espoused their association with the Anglican church. I think anyone who works for the Anglican church and is notable enough to have a WP article is not an arbitrary inclusion - Gordon Cheng and Tony Payne, for example, are notable Christian authors in the list that have worked in the Anglican Church (in stipendiary and lay capacity respectively) in the past (and still attend and are involved in Anglican Churches). While there are some arbitrary lists of Australians that should go, this one is one we can fix up. What's wrong with that? JRG 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishop should have a capital letter if it's someone's title. JRG 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you check my recent edit history, I have voted to keep several of these, and kept one or two more from even being nominated. I agree that a list is different from a category, and the List of Justices of the High Court of Australia you recently added to Lists of Australians is appropriate. In my opinion, this one is not suitable as it is an incomplete list of people notable for something else who happen to also be Anglican. The person's articles should reference the Anglican connection, and put them in the category. It appears a number of people agree with me, and a number agree with you. Some poor admin has to make a decision based on this discussion.
"People who have Wikipedia articles" is arbitrary, and satisfied by categories. "People who should have Wikipedia articles for X reason" are lists with clear criteria.
Re capitals: I agree it should be Bishop X (or Justice X), but it should be "list of bishops". --Scott Davis Talk 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unhelpful list.--cj | talk 07:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being "unhelpful" is not a reason for deletion. Please cite a proper reason. JRG 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JRG Billtheking 11:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per JRG. Mathmo Talk 09:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ScottDavis and others. While a list of people who have worked in the church would be worth having and keeping, this is not that, risks being unbounded over time and becoming an indiscriminate list where the only thing those on it have in common is their faith. As some have raised too, in some cases there may be verification issues. How is one an Anglican or a Presbyterian for example? I was baptised a Methodist, was associated with a word-faith church for many years then left it - would I be a Methodist, an evangelical, or none of the above? That's the sort of issues these things raise. Orderinchaos78 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The header is more clearly stated than what you say. It is people who have clearly associated and identified themselves with the church in question, not just that they have had some vague association with them. JRG 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename it fails the requirements for a list article to exist that are outlined in WP:LIST in my opinion, because it would be unbounded. If it were changed to List of notable Australian Anglicans I would change my vote. Lists of notable persons can be bounded. As to the above discussions, I don't think that people on the list should need to be notable for their Anglican involvement, they can be notable for any reason. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to change the list name to that, but I don't think anyone is going to support me in that. JRG 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. It can be difficult with potentially unbounded lists, and renaming may not convert those who've already taken a stance against it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing moderator - unfortunately (as usual) no one wants to work to a compromise, so can I ask that this be userfied to me please since this is almost certainly and disappointingly going to go be deleted. JRG 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy for these pages to be userfied to JRG so that he can use them to monitor the development of the articles linked from here. I'm also happy if he wants to add the red links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do#People of Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not preempting any decision but I've copied to User:JRG/List of Anglican Australians to be safe --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete rubbish. Please cite a proper reason if you want to take part in this debate. JRG 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about a "dangerous precedent" - there are still plenty of worse examples. At least we're making an attempt to get the lists of Australians up to a standard of completeness and verifiability, and expunging the ones that can not be complete in favour of categories and more focused lists. The rest of the world is a bigger job than I want to take on. --Scott Davis Talk 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise? - why don't we have a list of people who work or have worked for the Anglican Church in Australia? Bishops, ministers and lay people - if you can think of a good name or a way to make this workable please reply. Anyone else can go in a category. JRG 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested List of Anglican bishops in Australia above. I don't think that ordinary clergy are inherently notable, and a category is easier to maintain for clergy and lay people famous for something else who are also Anglican. That title covers both the current Anglican Church of Australia and Anglican bishops from before that separate organisation was formed. There is already a Category:Australian Anglicans and Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Australia which only has 4 subcategories and one list instead of 25. The dioceses are listed in the rather short article Anglican Church of Australia. A few of those already have lists of their previous and current bishops. --Scott Davis Talk 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for a list of bishops; however, we do have some notable clergy who are not bishops and some lay people whose claim to fame is mostly to do with their work in the Anglican Church, and I'm not sure what we do with these people - maybe I'll stick them on the end of the particular diocese page. JRG 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The diocese is a possibility if they are associated with one in some significant way. The process I have used for biographies is 1) to make sure they are categorised properly and 2) look at the article and see which articles it links to should logically have a link back. Sometimes the logical link is from a subpage. It's usually obvious what made the person famous, and that is where the links to the article usually come from. --Scott Davis Talk 07:28, 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 early per WP:SNOW Adam Cuerden talk 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist-terrorism[edit]

Atheist-terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page seems like it was created to make a pro-religion or anti-atheism point, in violation of WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Strong delete: Ugh. Entirely original research with no reliable sources. It also reads with a strong pro-religion and anti-atheism ideal, violating WP:NPOV (per above). Send this one off to Christpedia (Conserpedia?) or whatever it is named. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as well, per above. Extremely NPOV, not to mention violating WP:OR --Miskwito 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mamalujo 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This non-!vote is from the creator of the article. JuJube 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up and name the sources to overcome the OR concerns. At least, cite some news sources since some names mentioned often appear in the news. If this doesn't work out, then by all means delete. --- Tito Pao 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research; the article defines a term and synthesizes facts without attribution to reliable sources. Google returns only 164 hits for "Atheist-terrorism", nearly all of them self-published (e.g., blogs and forum posts). --Muchness 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable orginal research. If it is not original research, it most certainly fails the policy on attribution. Kyra~(talk) 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Chock full of OR, factually inaccurate (invokes Hitler as an example of an "atheist" for one), all inherently POV with no possibility of recovery. Krimpet 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete unsubstantiated original research/essay. /Blaxthos 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but needs POV removed total rewrite While the article is strongly POV in its current form and needs a lot of work, it is a valid topic given Richard Dawkin's assertion that (to paraphrase) religion is responsible for most atrocities. There is a book review of the "The Dawkins Delusion" in the New Scientist from last week that could be cited and possibly the Dawkins Delusion itself contains references that are relevent (I don't know - I've not read it). I agree that several of the sections of this piece need wholesale removal -- like Hitler, Purportedly Religious Terrorism etc. Plus, the article name should be changed for sure. Perhaps a "List of atrocities carried out by Atheist Regimes" or "Atrocities by Supposedly Atheist Regimes" might be better? Coricus 06:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start again with a "Atrocities by Supposedly Atheist Regimes" article. Coricus 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and radically clean up per Coricus 99of9 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Delete I'm convinced that the content doesn't even match the name. 99of9 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Utter nonsense, lists political/terrorist parties as "terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Atheist goals or teachings." Practically unsourced (both sources are somewhat offtopic), extreme POV. DLX 08:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wants to create a referenced article on Marxist terrorism (with non-marginal sources that refer to it as such), let them do so. Gazpacho 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In accordance with DLXs reasoning. The mere title of the article is POV. The various organizations themselves already have articles outlining their agendas this kind of grouping and labeling is not encyclopedic. Of course the same could possibly be said about the "muslim terrorism" article. - Arch NME 10:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon taking another look at both articles there is a differnce which is that cited third party sources refer to it as "Islamist terrorism". Still POV but at least it's a record of someone elses, not an in house originally researched one. - Arch NME 10:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete POV forking/attack page --Haemo 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the author of the article, I'd like to make a couple points. If you note the article on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, it points out that communist terrorist organizations are second only to Islamic groups. Communist (Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc.) groups are by definition and self description philosophically atheist. This compilation is not my idea, nor is the concept of atheist terrorist groups novel. It is not original research. It should also be noted that there are articles on Christian Terrorism (despite the fact that there is not a single Christian group on the list) and on Religious Terrorism (despite the fact that no religious group other than Islamic is represented on the list. Based on the State Department list there's more reason for this article than Narco, Christian, Agro or Eco terrorism articles. The objections above to POV are equally applicable to the other terrorism articles. And, as no doubt most of you know, POV according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not a strong basis for deletion. The article can be edited and rewritten to deal with that. As to the title itself being POV, it is not so any more than the other terrorism articles are. The other articles on classifications of terror groups include their philosophical world view as their motivation. It is no more POV to have an article on atheistic terror groups than it is on Islamic or Eco terrorists. As to sources, they can be provided. There are existing articles, most of them well cited, on each of the groups listed. Finally, I don't think it's the best solution (because the category would be less inclusive leaving out any philosophically atheist groups which are not communist) but the article could be renamed "communist terrorism". Mamalujo 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Atheism is not a main philosophical basis for any of these groups. Therefore, labeling them "Atheist-terrorism" is both wrong and misleading. If you want, indeed, start an article about communist terrorism, but this time please find acceptable sources. DLX 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree. Historical materialism (or philosphical materialism - Marx's term) is a keystone of communist doctrine. It rules out any rules out the existence of any supernatural entity. Every communist government has been officially and stridently atheist. It is an essential part of their goals and identity. Mamalujo 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources calling all these groups athiest terrorists and that is what is important here. I took a look at that christian terrorism article as well and frankly that needs to go for some of the same reasons this one does. Let some one else make that call though as it might be looked on badly if you did, see WP:POINT. One bad article does not justify another. - Arch NME 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research; WP:POINT Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, calling ETA atheists, where there are sources that some people went to mass before detonating a bomb or to an ETA-sympathetic priest to confess their killings is more than slightly out of line... if the rest is as accurate there may only be one place to put this is the trash can. And by the way ... equating Marxism-Leninism with atheism can only be done by someone who does know nothing about it. AlfPhotoman 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most ridiculus article ever sighted that doesn't have anyhthing with atheism to do. Renaming the article to something else doesn't seem to make any good use either as nothing is related to anything. Article is majorly WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V hence beyond repair. Lord Metroid 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything above. I seem to remember a similar article coming through AfD recently ... anyone remember what that was or the result? -- Pastordavid 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title would seem to be deliberately misleading & biased. If it can be turned into a decent article about communist terrorism, that would be great. If this is done, it should be moved to Communist terrorism but the resultant redirect should be deleted. The focus of the article is communist terrorist groups so why label them as "atheist"? If you're talking about communists, be bold enough to say so. How is the all-communists-are-atheists argument irrelavant (whether it be true or not)? What if they are? So, be up front about it and move it to Communist terrorism ... if and only if it can be repaired. However, I doubt that it can be. As noted above, there's nothing relating these groups together besides the fact that they happen to share similar political ideas also the article seems to contain original research and bias and seems to lack sources. Jimp 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh so many reasons - but it's basically an attack page on communism that riddled with OR, factual inaccuracy, no citations relevent to the topic, et al. WilyD 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More like an attack on atheism. Did you note his background?George Leung 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Clear example of a POV essay with a deliberately misleading title. — brighterorange (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete 8thstar 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Regroup. As an Inclusionist I cannot use delete. However, I noticed that most of them are nothing more than existing terrorism classification (such as communist), and thus this article is nothing more than a violation of WP:NPOV, and perhaps WP:NOT#SOAP. George Leung 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: If no one object, I will go WP:BOLD, and rename it to communist terrorism, which does exist. George Leung 08:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT2: DELETE. I am no inclusionist anymore! George Leung 08:15, 8 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 Wayland, Massachusetts#Education. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 08:46Z

Happy Hollow School[edit]

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

non notable elementary school; I'm not sure how people justified their keep votes in the first afd - there was no claim of notability then, and most of a year later, still no claim of notability. There are probably about 500,000 elementary schools in the world; why do we need an article on this one? Brianyoumans 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no non-trivial independent reliable sources and nothing approaching claims of notability (such as a notable alumni, or a succesful school team or anything). JoshuaZ 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to assert notability, as well as the lack of reliable sources to confirm if the school meets the primary notability criterion or not. Kyra~(talk) 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. No assertion of notability . Resolute 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Show me a notable elementary school and I'll show you something few and far between. Dennitalk 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability made --Miskwito 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. General failure to meet WP:RS, WP:NOTE, or WP:ORG, and lack of improvement in the 9 months since the last AfD would appear to show that the "this article will improve" argument forwarded last time was in error, since nobody has managed to find any sources in those months. Shimeru 08:38, 8 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) 2007-03-11 08:47Z

The Legend of Zelda: Lost Hope[edit]

The Legend of Zelda: Lost Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Previously prod'ed, so I am bringing it here. —ptk✰fgs 05:07, 7 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) 2007-03-11 09:24Z

List of Australian contemporary artists[edit]

List of Australian contemporary artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Australian Contemporary Artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

An almost empty, unmaintained list that is better served by a category Delete Steve (Slf67) talk 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unmaintained, empty. Criteria for inclusion are arbitrary and POV. Resolute 05:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless/empty/orphaned. /Blaxthos 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Peta 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient people on it to be separate from artists or elsewhere. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While this could be an appropriate list, no-one has been actively maintaining it. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The in-article instructions on how to fill in the blanks are longer than the content (discounting empty section headings) and POV. Better to be a category. --Scott Davis Talk 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Peta, Scott - I suggest discussing similar articles at the talk page regarding australian-relaed lists, and prodding them, before dragging them through here.Garrie 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually one of the few uncontentious ones. Others are generating enough debate that they'd have been summarily deprodded. --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - I prodded the first three I nominated, and two had to come here anyway. If you think there are more that won't get contested, please prod them and list at talk:Lists of Australians. --Scott Davis Talk 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would be better as a category. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:52, 9 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 Metal Slug 4. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:25Z

Trevor Spacey[edit]

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

Non-notable videogame character. Contested prod. Dennitalk 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nominator says it all. /Blaxthos 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention and slight merge into Metal Slug 4 (the related game). Delete or redirect as appropriate. -- saberwyn 05:31, 7 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 Metal Slug 4. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:25Z

Nadia Cassel[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable gaming character. Dennitalk 05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mention and slight merge into Metal Slug 4 (the related game). Delete or redirect as appropriate. -- saberwyn 05:32, 7 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 snowball del An insult to common sense of notability. `'mikka 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otis chodosh[edit]

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

This article is a sub-stub. I commented on the talk page that "As I understand it, any of a hojillion different mathematical statements could be considered 'corollaries to number theory.' This article seems to be making something insignficant sound as if it were important. 45 + 15 = 60 is a corollary to number theory. I invoke WP:BALLS." Considering the lack of content in the article's present statement, the fact that the subject is only 19 years old, and George's law, I doubt that any notable information can be found. I'm always willing to reconsider in the light of new evidence. Deranged bulbasaur 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Violation of WP:BIO. Not notable. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article in its current form does not satisfy the primary notability criterion or the criteria relating to people; furthermore, the information that is within the article is not attributed to a reliable source. Kyra~(talk) 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. And all the IPs that contributed are from Stanford, including one poor user who kept trying to blank the page... -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:07, 7 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arwin![edit]

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

One sentence article about an "on hiatus" Disney Channel show that hasn't aired an episode. Article's unsourced, failing WP:A. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per failing the policy on attribution. Logically, if the material cannot be attributed, the notability of the show cannot be determined either using reliable sources, so it also fails the guideline on notability. Kyra~(talk) 06:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It took me all of four seconds to hit IMDB and pull up the show's entry [33], which has a release date of March 16th. Ravenswing 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Isn't IMDB's information user-submitted, making it an unreliable source? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can submit info to IMDB, which its editors then review and decide whether to pass or not. A projected Disney Channel show with an air date a bit over a week from now is unlikely to be some fannish hoax. It's a heck of a lot more reliable than Wikipedia is, for that matter. Ravenswing 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - until more sources - possibly something offical from Disney itself - can be provided, I still don't think IMDB is enough to satisfy WP:A. And if it is deleted now, I'd be willing to vote keep later if the show is confirmed to exist and given at least a proper stub.--AgentCDE 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I find nothing on this to indicate it's notable. Even if we accept IMDB as reliable (which I'd be very, very hesitant to do), it's not enough for a comprehensive article. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only because there isn't much in the article. IMDb is actually quite reliable (though I prefer corroboration from a second source), but the article doesn't really contain anything except a basic directory entry. Deletion should be without prejudice to proper recreation. -- Black Falcon 00:16, 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 speedy del. verifiable hoax. `'mikka 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Anton Rose[edit]

Bryan Anton Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO and I can't find the book he's supposedly written through Google. I considered a speedy but thought an AfD was better. Pigmandialogue 06:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing WP:BIO unless sources showing otherwise are forthcoming. Nuttah68 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD AlfPhotoman 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. IMDB never heard of him or the films he's supposedly done. Amazon.com never heard of him or the book he supposedly wrote. A whopping 13 Google hits is led by the fellow's Myspace page. Ding-ding-ding ... this nonentity's done. Ravenswing 19:31, 7 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.--Wizardman 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spangles (restaurant)[edit]

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

notability, WP is not a directory, edits consist of little but vandalism Chevinki 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Link to first AFD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spangles (restaurant) —Celithemis 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing has really changed since that first debate (recently!) It really shouldn't be back here again.--Hobit 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a chain of 19 is not insignificant. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but there's nothing notable about this small chain of restaurants except a fluff piece written a few years ago. That's where all the info in the article comes from. Chevinki 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its true the piece could be written better, i still think that a cahin of 19 restaurants is singificant. If this chain were in Sydney, London or California or somewhere whether we'd be having this argument though. I really like the idea that facts from other places. How less significant is this rather than footballers or 1960s Playboy playmates or monsters in D&D all of which have entries...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think we would be having this argument no matter where it was located. You're still getting your info for a 3 year old fluff piece. WP is not a directory of every minor restaurant chain in the US. It does not meet the notability guidelines in WP:ORG which states that in-depth coverage is needed from multiple independent sources. WP:LOCAL says "

If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all.

The most this article deserves is a Merge. This isn't even getting into all the spam and vandalism this article attracts and nobody seems to notice. Chevinki 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I updated the page substantially. It could probably still use some editing, since I'm not too sure about the tone, and because I wasn't at all familiar with the chain before updating the content. Since I went to the effort of adding so much content to the page, my answer is changed to Strong keep. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - It's a big enough chain. WP is indeed not a directory. It is an encyclopedia. And no matter how many times folks say "WP is not a directory," not even putting the effort to write out the word Wikipedia, Wikipedia will remain an encyclopedia. Which is essentially a directory of knowledge. Regardless, my reasoning for Keep is that the article is well-sourced, and has been expanded significantly. There's definitely enough there for a decent article. Canæn 06:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-written, well-referenced article. Nothing else should matter. If these restaurants were scattered throughout New York City, rather than throughout Kansas, there would be no debate. — CharlotteWebb 06:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been tidied up and greatly improved since yesterday. I agree with those saying that if this chain were in London/New York/Sydney etc there would be no debate here. Arguably they are less notable as they are "only" in Kansas. However Kansas is a location of some significance and there are 19 restaurants, we're not talking one coffee shop in a little village in the Outer Hebredies here. Jules 09:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I nominated this article because it was often vandalized, had little to no information, and in the year and months since its creation nobody bothered to expand on it or seem to care much about how much it was vandalized until I nominated it for deletion. This cleaned up version is the result of this nomination (check the history if you don't believe me). There was no "geography bias" on my part against Kansas or rural areas and I DON'T appreciate the implication that there was. Kindly stop now. Chevinki 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If vandalism was the main issue then the answer would have been a protect or semi-protect rather than putting it up for deletion.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism wasn't the only issue. Read the entire comment. By assuming I did it out of any geographic bias you're violating the spirit of Assume Good Faith. I haven't assumed that you want to keep it because of any geographic bias but because you think the article deserves to stay on its merits. I expect the same courtesy in return. Chevinki 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The geography bias issue arises from the subsequent comments from other contributors, not from the original nomination. Jules 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article would not have been cleaned up any time soon if it hadn't been nominated, so thanks for being bold and taking action about it, Chevinki. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this AfD is a good example of how the AfD process can work very well to improve an article rather than getting an article deleted. Jules 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been significantly improved (see diff) and numerous additional sources have been added that establish notability. -- Black Falcon 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well covered corporation, so WP:CORP is satisfied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eckenweiler Water Tower[edit]

Eckenweiler Water Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable municipal water tower. Descendall 07:10, 7 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Broadcasting Tower[edit]

Perry Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another non-notable broadcast tower. Descendall 07:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable, IMO 'Perry Broadcasting Tower is the tallest construction in Oklahoma' is not enough to establish notability. Nuttah68 10:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and above. --soumসৌমোyasch 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:56, 8 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM- and TV-mast Helsinki-Espoo[edit]

FM- and TV-mast Helsinki-Espoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Descendall 07:24, 7 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pylons of Pearl River Crossing[edit]

Pylons of Pearl River Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article gives a bunch of technical specifications of three power pylons in China, but it doesn't really give an explination why these pylons are important. Descendall 07:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Mastipedia -- no, just Delete per not an indiscriminate collection of tall standy things. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable power pylons, what's next, phone booths? Nuttah68 10:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If people can simply declare that every 1/2 mile long U.S. or state or county road road is "inherently notable" because they "LIKE" them, then why wouldn't power pylons which are probably more expensive, approved by governmental authorities, assigned numbers, and equally useful to society be just as "inherently notable?" And these seem better sourced than some of the articles about roads or persons of minor nobility. I'm not arguing to keep this, but the question does make me stop and think. Edison 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I support all road articles, but non-specialists tend to be more aware of the roads in their area, & they could be said in t hat sense to be more notable.DGG 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that token, if several people know all aboutsome area of knowledge, such as "the ash trays used at Howard Johnson restaurants" or "British telephone booths" or "covered wooden bridges" wouldn't they be "more aware of" same and thus the subjects would become "inherently notable?" Why should anything be "inherently notable" just because a few Wikipedia editors are fans of it, absent some common notability criterion in terms of multiple reliable secondary sources? Edison 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally writing an article about ash trays at Howard Johnson restaurants, now.  :) —Carolfrog 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, also—here. —Carolfrog 02:57, 10 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 speedily deleted as a copyvio by BozMo. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DigiTech[edit]

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

Page is purely an advertisement, written in the style of an advertisement, and serves zero educational, historic or other significant purpose Smullin 07:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing but an ad. --SubSeven 10:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - not only an ad but a copyvio too (from [34]). So tagged. MER-C 11:58, 7 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) 2007-03-11 09:25Z

Fistogan Technique One[edit]

Fistogan Technique One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fistogan Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This is apparantly a combat method for RPG games. There's no reason to suppose that it's notable, and no sources are referenced. Deranged bulbasaur 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a Combat Method in Chat Rooms that is being developed from 'Sims' or 'T1-T2' versions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoleplayingHistory (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - It was good of the author (above) to prove non-notability. EliminatorJR Talk 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the above. --Haemo 04:21, 8 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 Deleted by Swatjester. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:26Z

Gelta[edit]

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

It's a non-notable neologism that appears to be something made up on TV one day. It's also little more than a dicdef as it stands. Deranged bulbasaur 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The fact that this article originally began "according urban dictionary..." does not inspire confidence. —Celithemis 10:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. I'm the third editor to place a delete tag on this article or the fourth if you include the creator who appears to have ceased to contest this deletion (see the article's somewhat convoluted history for details). Random Passer-by 02:35, 11 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 speedily deleted by Fang Aili. MER-C 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving:Mitsuko[edit]

Saving:Mitsuko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability, reads like an advert, have not even produced an album Chris 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - unremarkable garage band. So tagged. MER-C 08:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete makes no claim to meeting WP:MUSIC and fails WP:ATT. Nuttah68 10:55, 7 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction/Action[edit]

Fiction/Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on a band that shows no sign of meeting the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. Catchpole 08:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 08:41, 7 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 g1, WP:SNOW, utter nonsense. NawlinWiki 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water bees[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. It starts out reasonable, then gets more and more farfetched. No sources are cited, and a google search fails to confirm any of this. Deranged bulbasaur 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oh, yes, please get rid of it. The last sentence is "To find a hive inhabited by water bees will almost certainly bring great wealth." Do me a favour... Robinson weijman 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Could probably be speedied as vandalism. —Celithemis 09:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - and so tagged as nonsense. --Haemo 10:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a waste of time this discussion is. Absolute gibberish that I would have zapped on sight if it had not been AFD listed DELETE, jimfbleak 10:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comments are the waste of time. There's no reason you could not have still "zapped" it. The AFD process does not preempt the speedy deletion process. The reason I listed it here is that hoaxes are specifically excluded from WP:CSD g1 unless they're incomprehensible nonsense, which this isn't. Excuse me for "wasting your time" by following wikipedia policy. Deranged bulbasaur 10:55, 7 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 Please review me! 04:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Bank & Trust Company[edit]

Republic Bank & Trust Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability: This article contains no information about the subject's notability. Robinson weijman 08:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs clean-up and sourcing, but the company seems a decent size and as a bank chain is notable I'd have said StuartDouglas 12:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article needs development, but clearly of sufficient size for inclusion. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you for the responses so far. It appears that this bank is known to the previous two commenatators. Is it well-known in the US? Robinson weijman 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I don't know it personally, but 40 branches over a reasonable geogrpahic area seems notable (from the distance of the width of the Atlantic anyway :-) StuartDouglas 10:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Hmmm, then I agree with your previous comment to keep and add references if it really is notable, i.e. those references can be found. If not, remove the article. Robinson weijman 12:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never heard of it either, but I added some external links that I think could be turned into references. More references are probably available. —Carolfrog 04:13, 10 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 Love Indoctrination and Keep Jeremy Griffith. Cbrown1023 talk 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Griffith[edit]

Jeremy Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Love Indoctrination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two articles about some guy with his own website and his psychological theory. If you can deal with the mind-numbing prose of this article and (especially) its related one Love Indoctrination, then you can pinpoint the rather obvious WP:COI and WP:ATT issues with accuracy. Prods removed by author. JuJube 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD AlfPhotoman 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the POV and conflict of interest problems are insurmountable. - Richardcavell 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete one, keep the OtherJeremy Griffith page has been improved to be in line with policies by initial author. The Love Indoctrination page can be removed. FishoFish 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jeremy Griffith as it has been improved by the author (sources added, major parts excised). Delete Love indoctrination. -- Black Falcon 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jeremy Griffith and Delete Love Indoctrination. Griffith appears to meet the notability guidelines, though the sources I located in a cursory search were only related to his disputes with the press - e.g. the dispute with ABC (cited in article) and the Sidney Herald[35]. If the article is kept, it needs a POV overhaul.--Kubigula (talk) 15:39, 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 Bubba hotep 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay McCarey[edit]

Jay McCarey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable actor. Director of unreleased film "Ashbury forever", which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asbury Forever. No sources. Reconsider after the film is released. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:34Z

  • Delete. A look at IMDb shows he was in a couple of movies. In minor, minor roles. →EdGl 21:57, 7 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yurika Hino[edit]

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

WP:NOTE

  • KEEP I only set this up to correct the improperly listed deletion thingy. Seems to be sourced right in the article. Snarfies
It won't hurt to mention that a more detailed article would seem appropriate.DGG 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Is that grounds for deletion? Snarfies 23:21, 2 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) 08:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced: Anime News Network, the sole source cited in the article, appears to be a user-editable website ("You can contribute information to this page, but first you must login or register" [36]). That doesn't meet the standard of sourcing required for a biography of a living person. 125.63.153.157 08:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Japanese wikipedia is a secondary source, the link is included on the site. This really is not a sourcing / verification issue: WP:BPL talks about contrevertial information and the like. This article contains mostly bland biographical information that best comes from sites like IMDB, ANN, and other internet seiyu databases which collect data from movie credits and television credits and put them in one easy to use place. This is akin to asking for a source to prove that Robin Williams starred in Mrs. Doubtfire. --Kunzite 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a source for itself either, so the jawiki link does not count as a secondary source. Especially given that the jawiki article has even fewer sources than the enwiki article: zero. And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a real WP:RS and not a fan-edited site when posting up information like birthdate (which some people may consider private information as per WP:NPF; dunno if it applies here to a non-notable actress) or an alleged "real name" (incidentally, not mentioned in the jawiki article). Maybe not by itself a reason to delete, as we could simply remove that information from the article and leave the directory listing of what cartoons she's voice-acted for; but it's another nail in the coffin given that this article meets neither WP:N nor WP:ATT. 125.63.153.157 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete She has voice acted for a bunch of notable anime, as well as Japanese versions of notable Western films (such as Trinity in The Matrix), but it seems there is absolutely nothing else to say about her. Other sites are better at keeping up with her list of works. –Pomte 08:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (without prejudice to recreation) on the grounds of notability, not verification or biographical verification. I can't much that establishes her as a notable voice actor. This biography is a bit small. She's not won any major awards, she works for a theate company (Gekidan Subaru 剧团昴), she has a few major roles, and while the list omits many of the other productions that she's been in. If I could have found an interview or something, I would have voted to keep. --Kunzite 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per points made by User:Kunzite.--Kubigula (talk) 14:49, 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 one deleted by Garion96 due to copyright issues, the rest delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Faerûn: Present[edit]

Timeline of Faerûn: Present (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. WP:NOT for plot summaries, no matter in which format you present them. This and the other timelines are in-universe only. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." It is sourced (or at least, sources are given in the main Timeline of Faerûn article, and are published by the company that produces Forgotten Realms, so they are hardly independent sources anyway), but that's not enough to make it an article fit for Wikipedia. Articles are also not really included into the flow of the Forgotten Realms articles, as they are barely linked. Two of the six timelines are linked to by one relevant article, the other four are linked to by none. The lack of links in itself is not a reason for deletion, but shows that the articles hardly serve any purpose here, and coupled with the clear WP:NOT violation, they should be deleted.

Also nominated:

  • Delete all per nom. No assertion of real world significance. Way too much cruft to merge. MER-C 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that was given for the proposal was

"WP:NOT for plot summaries, no matter in which format you present them. This and the other timelines are in-universe only. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." It is sourced, but that's not enough to make it an article fit for Wikipedia."

AFAIK, in modern usage "should" is not "must/has to". Therefore, there is no reason to delete this article.

Also, WP:NOT, heading Plot summaries, second sentence: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

As far as I can see, the abovementioned timelines *are* aspects of a larger topic. — 62.224.109.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

But how can you justify a plot summary of this size? MER-C 09:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One justification is that these plot summaries are just 1-2 sentance summaries of entire books. There just happen to be an amazing number of books. If this could be cleaned up and links added to the books containig this information it could be made into a great guide for the series. Anything with about a hundred books is hard to keep straight without some sort of timeline. Shimaspawn 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well... If this got userfied, do you really think that there would be folk up to the daunting task of heavily reformatting this and adding such notations? As per my comment below, it's not that I don't think that it couldn't be done or is necessarily not worth doing, but I'm certainly daunted. Bitnine 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be wiling to work on it. I've been looking for a reason to crawl through my old novels, and I have an old copy of the offical timeline (circa ~1990's). Shimaspawn 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. It doesn't help the articles that you have to search elsewhere to find out what they are about, and being all in-universe (nowhere does the first one make it clear that it is a timeline for a video game) hurts them. TJ Spyke 09:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for the reasons listed above. I'm afraid the argument on the semantics of the word 'should' is not enough to save the articles. Nuttah68 11:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. And don't get me wrong, I like Faerûn fine. In fact, the Forgotten Realms setting is interesting and notable as a fictional construct, as it is used as the basis for dozens of video games, a large number of gaming supplements, swarms of novels, and other media as well. If this were just an article - or even a couple - giving information of the setting and showing the placement of the various works in the setting, that would be dandy with me. However, this mammoth in-universe sprawling timeline isn't the way to do that. (I'd say "Merge down and reformat if you have a giant amount of free time and the patience of a saint," but that seems like too much to ask of anyone.) Bitnine 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The truth is, this is the timeline for the largest setting of the largest RPG in the world. It has about a hundred novels and close to fifty rule books pertaining to this. The setting has been around for ~20 years and in that time the offical infromation alone has made for a huge timeline. There are 816,000 ghits for Faerûn [[37]], 543,000 for Faerun [[38]] and 3,100,000 for Forgotten Realms (the offical title the setting material is published under) [[39]]. Also, Amazon lists 843 books under "Forgotten Realms" [[40]]. Cleaning this up won't be easy I admit, but there are a lot of souces that can be used. Short I don't think can be managed though even if we only stick in a sentance or two about a book. Shimaspawn 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a huge re-write. --Hobit 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I don't doubt the importance of Faerun, but no need to have exhaustive plot summaries. This info is probably repeated elsewhere on the internet at a fan site or some such. A link on the main Faerun page would be appropriate. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible CopyVio I am not concerned with this subject of this article, though I think this is not the best way to do it, but I am concerned that this is a copyright violation. Several websites on the FR do contain this information in the same way, and I do not know whether they took the information from Wikipedia or the information was taken from them. See: [41][42][43] Plus there is the possibility that some of this was copied and pasted from the books themselves. However, the subject itself is not inherently objectionable, and would be quite appropriate, especially since it could show the overlaps between various books, adventures, computer and video games and other content if properly done. FrozenPurpleCube 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Forgottem Realms Wiki This level of detail is inappropriate for an encyclopedia catering to a general audience. Better as an external link in the Faerun article (which already has one by the way). --Polaron | Talk 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it should be transwiki'ed. For one thing, it seems they already have the content, but for another, I am still doubtful of the copyright status of the pages here. FrozenPurpleCube 00:56, 8 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. Carabinieri 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome To The Jungle (2007 film)[edit]

Welcome To The Jungle (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent self-promotion for non-notable, unverifiable student/amateur film project. ~Matticus TC 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability, unknown actors, unknown everything but a pure plot summary. –Pomte 09:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless the author can provide some sources (I can't find any) that this is a legitimate film, and that it's notable in some way, I can't see how we can keep it. The plot is also so stupid that it might actually be a hoax. Not that there haven't been stupid Hollywood action films (which might be the author's point), but there's no indication this is a real film that any legitimate film executive would spare a microsecond for.—Carolfrog 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything about the film anywhere, appears to be non-notable. --Nehrams2020 18:33, 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 Redirect to Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. —Loremaster (talk) 2007-03-07 06:43Z

Dale Carrico[edit]

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

not notable lecturer DGG 08:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Lecturer on rhetoric ; his page at San Francisco Art Institute gave an error message, and he could not be found by their search engine. I added his page at Berkeley, where he is a lecturer and from which he obtained his doctorate in 2005. Has not yet published any books. His CV (link added) lists 8 papers presented , but I cannot tell if any of them are published. All refs given seem linked to him. By the standards for academic people, clearly non-notable.[reply]

NOTE: I've merged the content of the Dale Carrico article with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies article so the Dale Carrico page will now redirect to it. We should close this AfD debate. --Loremaster 16:41, 7 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--Wizardman 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Love You Mi Vida[edit]

I Love You Mi Vida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. No real content contained in article. TomPhil 09:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the band wins the contest, it will (and should) come back. But I think this is way too trivial at the moment.--Hobit 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the winner of a national contest. The real notability of the song is predicated on the fact that it will be performed (NB: "performed" is generally held to be enough where ESC entries are concerned) at the final in Helsinki in May, so even if consensus is that it hasn't reached notability by winning the Spanish pre-selection, it'll be notable in a couple of months. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a further point, the Spanish ESC pre-selection is organised separately for the song and the performer (for some reason), so the song can legitimately be described as a winner of something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to notability after it became the winning ong in the spanish national selection to ESC 2007. I say let us keep it adding info as the contest comes along and result.--Matrix17 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:BigHaz. Not much more to say, really. -- Black Falcon 00:38, 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 redirect to Identity (philosophy). The target article defines an identity as transitive. There's not really anything else to merge. [[Identity (mathematics}]] is far less applicable, in this case. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transitivity of identity[edit]

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

Redundant article that borders on dictionary definition - while the transitive property of identity is an important one, I am not convinced that it requires its own article, given that we have an article on Identity (philosophy) which mentions that identity is a Transitive relation. There is really nothing more to say about the topic, other than to give examples - which already exist on that page for transitive. I really don't see any way this can be expanded from what it is - a one-line mention in another article, padded out by examples that could be covered on a linked page. Haemo 10:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The phrase gets 500ish hits on Google and from mainly educational sites. Seems like folks really use this phrase in proofs. --Hobit 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of course people use the phrase in proofs! It's a basic property of identity. That doesn't make it any less redundant. People also use the phrase "symmetry of identity" or "reflexivity of identity" too. That doesn't mean they're in any way capable of producing an article that isn't redundant. --Haemo 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present a google search of wikipedia doesn't have the phrase anywhere where it is defined. Someone looking what the phrase means wouldn't be able to figure it out without the article. While a person "knowledgeable in the art" would know where to look, they'd also know what it is. So I stay with Keep. --Hobit 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect While the phrase may be notable, there is not enough new material for an article. It would be better served as a subsection of Identity (philosophy) or under the Maths subsection of Identity. Shimaspawn 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I listed this for deletion, and not merging, because there's really nothing there to merge in the first place. There's the definition, one good example (but there are already examples on Transitive relation) and one example which doesn't make sense. --Haemo 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with merge and redirect as an option is that the concept applies as much to Identity (mathematics) as it does to Identity (philosophy). I'm not sure how to resolve this. JulesH 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Identity (philosophy), the math article doesn't fit it as well, I think. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Identity (philosophy) as a plausible search term. The other option I considered was redirecting to Transitive relation, but I think that anyone searching for "transitivity of identity" would like to have a look at the identity article first. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this seems plausible to me. -- Black Falcon 01:07, 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 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaggards[edit]

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

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC The first debate had no consensus, article or sources have not improved since and the band does not seem to have become more notable. RJASE1 Talk 17:58, 1 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) 10:51, 7 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 09:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Levin[edit]

Adam Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There hasn't been much discussion because it's a non-notable autobiographical (8 of 12 edits, 3 were mine tagging it prod/afd) entry and I question why we are relisting when even the author/subject hasn't bothered to even comment... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • RevRagnarok, good point on lack of participation, and I do suspect this will end in Delete, but I'd like to see some stronger arguments. COI isn't strictly a reason to delete -- it's a red flag for POV, and likewise, lack of discography in AMG is also a red flag but not a robust reason. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 12:43Z
    • Notability is indicated in references on Allmusic, The Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock and the Warr Guitars web site. All independent sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alevin (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Given the lack of notability, the lack of WP:BIO credibility and a pretty serious COI. JBEvans 18:18, 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 09:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KGRL[edit]

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

Advertising; non-notable Internet radio station per WP:WEB. All sources provided in reference section are self-published, and are simply discussion or mentions of the site, nothing establishing notability. Contested prod. RJASE1 Talk 13:31, 1 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) 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not assert notability. Vegaswikian 05:55, 11 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. Carabinieri 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cork's apple[edit]

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

There is no real evidence that this exists, and no sources cited on the page. Kntrabssi 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article was created by a WP:SPA and 15 minutes of searching on google, google scholar, news articles etc.. has shown no trace of either Malus germicana or an apple named after Stephen Cork. Lots and lots of wikipedia mirrors and other places but nothing reliable at all. Looks like a hoax - Peripitus (Talk) 11:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources provided and none findable. Appears to be a hoax. Note that the primary editors of the article appear to be single purpose accounts. -- Whpq 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only article I found on google that is different from the Wikipedia article is also edited the same way Wikipedia is. No trustworthy sources anywhere, no mention of Stephen Cork, Malus Germicana, or any other related issues. Also, the claim that Stephen Cork found this apple while filming the IMAX movie "Galapagos" are false, as there is no evidence a man named Stephen Cork ever worked on the film. The pictures seem photoshopped, as well. Kntrabssi 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and comments here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence is given in the article to prove that the cork's apple is a real fruit and, more importantly, investigation has failed to yield such information. I have removed references to the "Cork's apple" at the Galapagos Islands article and Cork (a disambiguation page). -- Black Falcon 01:18, 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 keep.--Wizardman 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANAA[edit]

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

Notability. This article provides no reason why the subject is notable. Robinson weijman 11:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the island of Anaa - the group the article is about seem completely non-noted with no news articles. Most web hits are other groups with the same anacronym. Fails WP:WEB - Peripitus (Talk) 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a reference and some external links. I think it's a notable-enough organization for Wikipedia to have an article for.—Carolfrog 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as referenced. Kudos to Carolfrog.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources added by Carolfrog (which establish notability). -- Black Falcon 01:23, 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 Bubba hotep 11:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin V. Cheeks[edit]

Alvin V. Cheeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While he seems to have accomplished things, the companies/groups he's formed rank low on the Google test, many hits leading to mere listing pages or sources getting their info from Wikipedia. His name gets even fewer hits, failing WP:BIO in my opinion. Pigmandialogue 19:06, 3 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) 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the companies on the page, "Hinchcliff Capital Partners", has absolutely 0 Google hits. His name gets only 107 hits. I don't think he or his companies are notable enough for inclusion. - PoliticalJunkie 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

  • Delete per above searches. Addhoc 18:52, 10 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.

Bard varges[edit]

The result was speedy delete Bubba hotep 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's a silly article that adds no worth to Wikipedia. No idea what the topic is and seems to be vandalism JDCMAN 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This is an obvious attack page and should be speedily deleted, no debate required. It had been speedy tagged and the tag removed, I have re tagged it. Jules1975 12:48, 7 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 at new name. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of important homeopaths[edit]

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

Crufy list of people with only a very few described. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the names weren't advertising additions. Very few on the list have articles. Adam Cuerden talk 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In my view there's nothing sufficiently special about just being a homeopath to justify this list. Plus it is in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. It asserts that these homeopaths are "important" which is a subjective decision while providing no proper sources to support that assertion or indeed to confirm that they are homeopaths. Jules 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NPOV and ATT concerns as expressed by Jules. Otto4711 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing NPOV. Importance is subjective. Nuttah68 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Homeopathic partisans have been allowed to pursue this sort of cruft on WP for far too long. The main article of Homeopathy is a frequent target of self-advertising attempts, this seems to be no exception. Skinwalker 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with Delete hereVote changed, see below. What constitutes "important" is subjective in this case - it's kind of a fine line. Granted, I could be wrong, but at best we're looking at a merge and redirect to Homeopathy. --Dennisthe2 21:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to a waffle vote - Weak Keep (the title looks better now, but the article needs to be built up a bit), or barring that, Merge and redirect to Homeopathy. The problem now is whether the article can stand on its own and whether it can be considered notable beyond homeopathy practicioners - and if it can't and doesn't, it's probably better living in the Homeopathy article. A special note to the nom - just because you can possibly spam it is not only a non-criteria for deletion, it is a straw man argument. Remember, anybody can edit this thing - which also means anyone can remove spam. --Dennisthe2 18:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not delving to deep into this page, but it has 26 references to back up its claims! I'd guess this page meets WP:ATT better than 99% of articles on wikpedia. The first one I checked [46] explcitily states that Boericke, William (5th in the list) is an "Eminent U.S. homœopath." Maybe being a Homeopath is totally bogus, but these people are important homeopaths. It doesn't matter if the science is bogus, we need to follow Wikipedia:Fringe theories. - Peregrine Fisher 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you assume that "important" should be changed to "notable" this would become a list of notable homeopaths or simply, a list of homeopaths. Should there be such a list? Personally I'm not sure that homeopth is a notable enough occupation to warrant such a list. If such a list existed as an article I am sceptical as to whether many of the unreferenced homeopaths in this artcle would command a place on such a list. Jules 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Particularly worrying is the "Other known homeopaths" section, which doesn't assert notability at all. Adam Cuerden talk 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since some of those listed pass WP:BIO but prune the redlinked stuff. Jim Butler(talk) 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Important" is clearly a subjective and POV adjective. List of notable homeopaths would be an improvement. However, we already have "Category:Homeopaths", so a list is not necessary.--Kubigula (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my position to abstain in view of the renaming, pruning and arguments made by Peregrine Fisher and Black Falcon. I'm not sold on the value of the list, but enough has been done for me to withdraw my support for deletion. The main homeopathy article is already so long that I don't see a merge as a practical solution.--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed the "other homeopaths" section, and renamed the page "List of homeopaths." We're left with homeopaths who have their pages, so they're notable, and the rest have citations. If this page isn't deleted, I'll convert all citations to cite web and remove and hpaths that don't seem to belong. Also, this list has info that a cat can't contain. - Peregrine Fisher 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current version of the article. The current list describes most of the people on there and has citations and/or articles for all (the two reasons raised in the nomination). The article has been renamed, so the issue of POV regarding "important" is no longer relevant. Finally, this list is not redundant to the category as it contains descriptions of each person (dates of birth/death and contributions), is essentially chronologically organised, provides sources, and aids in the development of new articles (WP:LIST point 3). -- Black Falcon 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shortened version isn't bad, but it'll need moitoring for attempts to use it as advertising. I suppose that semi-protection might be appropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 19:26, 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 Redirect to Homeopathy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:27Z

Homeopath[edit]

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

Crufty list of initials. Doesn't seem very Wiki to me. Adam Cuerden talk 12:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Homeopathy. There doesn't look to me to be any salvagable content here but if so then it can be merged. Otto4711 13:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto has it right. Redirect to Homeopathy. What a homeopath is should be able to be gleaned from context accordingly, making this article a bit redundant. --Dennisthe2 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect as per comments above. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above AlfPhotoman 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is it my imagination or are we having lots of Homeopathy spam on Afd lately?
  • Redirect per above. The one useful thing was the reference on abbreviations, which I've added the main article's EL section. Jim Butler(talk) 22:04, 9 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) 2007-03-11 09:28Z

Go Go Clown[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism, creator removed prod without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a neologism, not assertion of notability. It may be an established phrase in Perth, but again that is not confirmed by reference to any source. Jules1975 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Weregerbil 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Pastordavid 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go Go Away, but consider for BJAODN. ObtuseAngle 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:51, 7 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, any possible merges are left as an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug dynamization[edit]

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

POV fork of a section of Homeopathy, though it might be an appropriate subject for an article if it wasn't a POV fork. Adam Cuerden talk 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but that's why I say weak keep in case the article can be salvaged. ObtuseAngle 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Talk:Homeopathy. Jim Butler(talk) 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, any remaining NPOV info can be merged into Homeopathy. Skinwalker 14:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The POV issue is probably (possibly?) correctible. I would suggest a selective merge to homeopathy, but that article is long and controversial enough. I've tagged this article for POV just in case. -- Black Falcon 01:34, 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 preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:28Z

John Henry Clarke[edit]

John Henry Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not establish him as notable, and I find it hard to believe more information could be forthcoming. Adam Cuerden talk 13:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article establishes him as notable in my view. Sources may be difficult to find due to the time this relates to, but it should be possible to find some further sources. What is there already is sufficient to keep the article Jules1975 13:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the FDA use his books as reference, per [47] and the statement "A guide to the use of homeopathic drugs (including potencies, dosing, and other parameters) may be found by referring to the following texts: A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D., (3 volumes; Health Science Press) and A Clinical Repertory to the Dictionary of Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D. (Health Science Press). These references must be reviewed in conjunction with other available literature on these drug substances." Nuttah68 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The person who nominated this AFD has been on some kind strange little campaign to delete articles about homeopathic practitioners. I don't know what his motivation is, but it's obvious (for example from this article) that his reasoning has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of the subjects. --Lee Hunter 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Talk:Homeopathy. Jim Butler(talk) 22:15, 9 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 10:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Materia Medica Pura[edit]

Materia Medica Pura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Crufty, unencyclopedic list. Adam Cuerden talk 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No need for list and all other pertinent information already appears on the author's Wiki article. StuartDouglas 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 200 year old books that are still in print, 18000+ GHits on the exact name. The article needs tidying up but regardless of my thoughts on the subject these are notable publications. Nuttah68 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adam's reasoning. Skinwalker 13:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article aids navigation for topics related to homeopathy (despite my or others' personal opinions on the subject). I have changed the format of the list so that it is more compact. I could find nothing in the Samuel Hahnemann article that duplicates this, so I am unsure what to make of StuartDouglas's statement. Could you please explain? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I suppose it's mostly the list being objected to - for one thing, almost all the articles linked don't mention Homeopathic use anyway. Perhaps we could just cut it? It doesn't leave much of an article, but it might be expandable later. Adam Cuerden talk 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe in homeopathy and am actually surprised at how widespread it is (if the number of 100,000 practicioners and up to 500 million patients is to be believed) Despite that, the Materia Medica Pura is a major work in the homeopathic field, which I believe should be included per WP:FRINGE (am I wrong to label homeopathy a fringe practice?). The list is an essential part of the work (a "compilation of reports") and I believe it is certainly better than classifying all existing articles in Category:Homeopathic remedies. I thought of suggesting a compromise of leaving the list, but not linking to any articles, but that defeats the purpose of wikilinking, which is to aid navigation. Even if the article on "arsenic", for instance, does not mention anything about homeopathy, having it linked would still aid a reader of this article. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure. I think you'd have to either have much more information than the list, or, I don't know, give examples of one or two. Just saying "All these things are mentioned" is cruft. It'd be like giving a list of everything in Linnaeus' taxonomy, only less useful, and probably less interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Normally I would agree. My reasoning in this case is this: as this is a "collection of reports", listing them doesn't seem to qualify as indiscriminate (I assume that's what you meant by "cruft"). It's like listing every minister in a cabinet or every province in a country. I'm inclined to see it kept as it's a complete list (I don't take incompleteness as a criterion for deletion, but completeness is certainly a plus). A complete accounting of homeopathic "remedies" should exist somewhere and homeopathy is already too long, so... -- Black Falcon 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But this isn't a complete list. This is a complete list of the remedies in one book. There seem to be quite a lot of other, similar books, though not created by the founder, and no doubt have lots more medicines in them. Adam Cuerden talk 09:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm ... In that case, maybe it is better to delete the list. But then, that would leave the article with just three sentences. Perhaps this article ought to be merged into Materia medica as a short three-sentence section? -- Black Falcon 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever I may think of homeopathy, per Nuttah68's reasoning a 200-year-old book that is still in print today and has so many ghits is notable. I ran a search for its title on Google scholar, hoping to find some scholarly reviews of the book that could be used to fill out the content of the article (now that the listcruft has been removed) and didn't find any, but I don't find that conclusive: it just means that GS is not the right source for that kind of citation. I did find 157 hits, primarily works about homeopathy that mention MMP, so it is notable academically as well as popularly. —David Eppstein 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Clearly notable - on par with the Bible for alternative medicine devotees. Needs some fleshing out, but that shouldn't be hard since there are at least a half dozen full-length books devoted to this work alone. Irene Ringworm 03:39, 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. Veinor (talk to me) 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin_Veroy[edit]

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

Orphaned page for non-notable hacker interviewed once by a newspaper six years ago StuartDouglas 13:21, 7 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

52 City of Calgary Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron[edit]

52 City of Calgary Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per a portion of WP:ORG that seems to have consensus, this is an individual chapter of a national organization that does not display its individual notability. The only sources on the page are links to its sponsor's page. It was listed as a proposed deletion. The proposed deletion tag was removed with the edit summary "I don't think this article should be deleted because, IT IS INDIVIDUALLY NOTABLE. This squadron was the first squadron to be formed in Calgary and has a long history of excellence." Note that there are hundreds of Royal Canadian Air Cadets squadrons in the country -- hundreds of them were the first to be formed in their community, and all have history of excellence. (Note to those that like to search Google for topics: you might have luck abbreviating Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron to RCACS.) Sancho (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from nominator): Here is a List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada. Only one squadron has a Wikipedia article, which I haven't nominated because it provides the claim that it is the first squadron in Canada, not just in its community. I didn't make this nomination because the article on the first Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Squadron in Canada was nominated for deletion, but was kept, because it was the first in Canada. Here is the discussion that resulted in that article being kept: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RCSCC_Victory Sancho (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yeah, whatever, there are similar cadet groups in high schools across the United States. They're about as notable as any other high school club. Ravenswing 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say they're more notable than a high school club, because they are co-sponsored by the Canadian Department of National defence, supervised by the Canadian Forces, and often do contribute a lot to the community. In small communities, the only Canadian Forces presence is due to the officers supervising the Canadian Cadet Organizations. However, I still think the individual sub-units are usually not notable for an encyclopedia. Sancho (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That could likewise be said for many high school clubs, which likewise often contribute to their communities and are often sponsored by national organizations (Key Club, Future Farmers of America, 4-H, DECA and so on). Ravenswing 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, okay, that would be correct. From the way that you said "notable as any other high school club, I thought you meant like, "Noname High School Chess club". Sancho (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual branches are not notable. Nuttah68 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but mention the existence of the cadet squadron (1-2 lines, with a link to the article on the organisation) in the appropriate school article, if determined. While the Royal Canadian Air Cadets are notable in relation to Canada and its military, individual groups of cadets are not solely notable by being "an individual group of cadets" alone. -- saberwyn 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no individual notability. -- Whpq 21:22, 7 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) 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Cheap Name[edit]

A Cheap Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Non-notable song that hasn't been released and has no fixed release date. Prod removed by anonymous user. Mr. Darcy talk 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no indication that there is any notability attached to the song. Nuttah68 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 8thstar 20:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sourcing seems to be possible at this early stage, other than that the song likely will exist at some point, which is the essence of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That's not adequate for a stub, because it basically boils down to an article that is little more than a repetition of the article title. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:41, 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) 2007-03-11 09:29Z

British Raj Indian Restaurant[edit]

British Raj Indian Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is more about an event than the restaurant itself. Also, it reads like a promotional piece. The event seems barely notable despite the media coverage. Ginkgo100talk 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just because a bunch of celebirites may have eaten there doesn't make it notable. --Tainter 14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Should we start listing restaurants that "celebrities" may have eaten at? Or set foot in? Where would the line be drawn at what is notable and what isn't? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikki Webster once set foot in the McDonald's I used to work in, took one look at me behind the counter, then left. Does that make the maccas store worthy of an article? -- saberwyn 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, and also because the news story that provoked the creation of this article (Kanye West supposedly ordering takeout from this restaurant to be delivered from Wales to New York) turned out not to even be true. [48] --Metropolitan90 16:39, 7 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 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City and Colour[edit]

City_and_Colour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

It is redundant to have the Dallas Green and City and Colour articles separate. City and Colour is Dallas Green, and the Dallas Green page is all about his music. For example, artists like Billy Corgan, or Tom Petty don't have articles solely for their solo projects, again because its redundant. Also, its useless to make a separate page with the same recycled info as the original, except with less actual information that the original and with improperly sources images.

City and Colour is just a moniker, one that Dallas didn't even use his latest album anyway..

jerkmonkee 04:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. City and Colour is a band, Dallas Green is a person. Both Dallas Green and City and Colour simply need more information. The Dallas Green page needs to become more of a biography about Dallas' life such as his early life or other such information. Information regarding biographies is collected over a period of time and the article won't expand overnight. City and Colour will probably continue to grow as a band because of the success up to this time; I don't feel there's a enough reason to delete an article simply because it currently lacks information. Take for example Crystal Castles (band). The page started like this and has been expanded a great deal. I would also like to point out that Dallas has made music under his own name of Dallas Green and also of City and colour.
--Seraphim Whipp 13:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. City and Colour is not Dallas Green alone; it's a band comprising Green and Julius Butty. Bearcat 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above comments. Also, all this article needs is some expansion, and it will be fine. -- Reaper X 22:11, 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 keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Office[edit]

Family_Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article was originally created by a page-moving vandal, since has been nominated for deletion via prod, but template removed by anon editor who did not provide a compelling reason or improve the article. Is currently merely a long definition, and I don't see how it could be much else. Michaelbusch 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - topic can be covered under any number of other existing financial planning articles. No sources, no references, and concur with Michaelbusch it is just a long definition at present. Risker 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this topic deals with a niche financial service that should eventually have a similar but shorter page as the entries on "Bank" or "Hedge fund". The original deletion tag was posted because the article was a very short stub (which I posted in the hopes that it would be expanded quickly). It has now been expanded to a comprehensible, valuable source of information that's hard to find elsewhere on the web that should continue to improve. Fang2415 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added as refs. a book on the specific subject, and a good WSJ article. Sitting there in google all along. I also put in links from pages on various Rockefellers, for their family office is perhaps the best known & is mentioned in half a dozen WP articles. DGG 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the exact term I've been trying to locate for weeks. Should've checked Wikipedia long ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.222.218.41 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikitionary, maybe. Michaelbusch 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added interwiki links. The idea really can't be merged easily into other articles. Chevinki 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Family Offices are a growing part of the wealth management business and are typically the most profitable clients for private banks. JGNorman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.22.33 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per the improvements to the article. I disagree that at the time of AFD it was just a long definition (if a "definition" gets long enough, it's a good sign that there are other things there besides a mere definition). On merging, no viable location has been suggested and, in any case, there is no reason why the article should not stand on its own. -- Black Falcon 02:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep googling "family office" returns 382,000,000 hits. It is one of the fastest growing areas of finance and philanthropy on Wall Street.

http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=159904336

http://www.umass.edu/fambiz

Handbook of Family Business and Family Business Consultation, Florence W. Kaslow Ed., The Hayworth Press, Inc.,2006 p.367

The Handbook of Estate Planning, Robert A. Esperti and Renno L. Peterson, Mcgraw, Hill, Inc., 1991

Family Wealth: Keeping it in the Family, James E. Hughs, Hughs & Whitaker, 1997

Family Foundations Now and Forever: The Question of Inter-Generational Succession, Paul N. Ylvisaker, The Council on Foundations, 1991

Philanthropy, Heirs & Values. How Successful Families are Using Philanthropy to Prepare Heirs for Post-Transition Responsibilities, Roy Williams & Vic Preisser, Robert. D. Read Publ., 2005

http://www.foxexchange.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.92.109.81 (talk) 15:25, 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 keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxton Fizz[edit]

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

notability, (google only gives 10 hits when you search - 9 w/o WP Chevinki 07:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I get about 296 for "Foxton Fizz" -wikipedia and they seem to be about the drink too. Rich257 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's really bizarre. I typed it in 3x last night just to make sure I got the spelling right and the results correct. Now google's listing 1,430 results. Is this a google thing? And it's worth pointing out that most of the referenced pages are still mentioning the drink in their myspace or in a forum post. That's still not that notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chevinki (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Chevinki 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just checked now and there are only 396 Google hits when I typed in "Foxton Fizz" -wikipedia. - PoliticalJunkie 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak maybe, there was an article in the Evening Standard halfway across the world, and the drink has been around for 70 years according to the preview. If sourced I could vote keep. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known soft drink within New Zealand (though I doubt it would be known overseas, hence the reliance by others on Googletesting and WP:HOLE. Deleting this may actually be regarded as a case of increasing the already inherent Wikipedia:Systemic bias if those are the only methods being used. It also passes the first criterion of notability for companies, having been written about as the subject of an independent source's writing: Television new Zealand and [] Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand. FWIW, it's a moderately notable company, and the fizz itself is pretty tasty, though not as good as Wests. Grutness...wha? 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both those references are very shallow. Foxton Fizz barely merited a mention in the New Zealand encyclopedia. I doubt it deserves mention in Wikipedia. So far I haven't seen any sources that make me regard it as notable. The depth of coverage is trivial as layed out in WP:ORG. Just because an organization has been around a long time does not make it notable. Chevinki 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the TVNZ reference is not shallow: the text is, but the video is not (click on "Close Up: Foxton Fizz (5:54)"). A 6-minute segment on a national TV network is rather non-trivial. By the way, I missed the video the first time around. -- Black Falcon 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Grutness — notable within region/country.Rich257 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LOCAL. Yes, it's just an essay (and one which I've noted just once or twice before), but I think it applies well in this case. I will incorporate the sources provided above into the article. Oh, and I find 427 ghits ... -- Black Falcon 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources added and cleanup performed. Much information about the drink is given in the video, so one could use that as an additional source. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 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) 2007-03-11 09:30Z

Furtado Equation[edit]

Furtado Equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Electron Tunneling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Electron tunneler dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This article, and the two related ones created by the same user, may not be patent nonsense to a general editor, so I didn't flag for speedy. But I think they are all patent nonsense to any physicist. I'd appreciate feedback on whether I've done this right, it's my first time on AfD. Philip Trueman 11:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as NN, violates WP:V. Only 34 G-hits [49] for the alleged creator, and the only ones of those referencing academia is of a similarly-named Brazilian music professor. RGTraynor 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is definitely, definitely nonsense, not to mention totally non-notable. --Haemo 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - per sidewalk cha- i mean per nom. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:21, 11 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. Closing a little early as the consensus is already evident and the continued presence of this article is rather odorous. kingboyk 13:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: An earlier version of this article was deleted in 2003, before the AfD system was established.

List of multiracial people[edit]

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

This list is offensive, has no place on wikipedia, has no value as a resource, and could contain a plethoric amount of names.

  • I agree that this is offensive, not to mention, inaccurate. Among other things, I find it offensive that so many entries list "Jewish" as a nationality when, in fact, it is a religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.229.5 (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Far too broad list to be sustainable as an article. Also big problems with defining what is "multiracial" such as (as suggested above) is "Jewish" a race, or a religion, or both? Jules1975 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a bad idea, for the reasons suggested above. Grouse 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as muddled, inherently POV ridden crap. I'm sure this list would have been a valuable resource in 1900 Alabama, where so much as a single drop of non-"white" blood made you 100% non-white, but I can't imagine any encyclopedic reason for this. RGTraynor 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This would include most of the United States. What defines someone who is "multiracial" -- The color of their skin? Ethnicity? Religion? Wherever the line is drawn in the sand, this is not a suitable article as it is unmanageable and far too POV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely subjective criteria, inherently POV, and all around a bad idea. Krimpet 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fits the purposes described in WP:LIST, nominator offers no valid reason for deletion. WilyD 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being subjective and too susceptible to POV. The list refers to multiracial to define its inclusion criteria, and the lead paragraph of that article states "It is sometimes a matter of opinion if people are mixed-race, because races themselves are not clearly defined. This has caused some problems for census-takers." The subjective/POV nature of the definition has caused problems for census-takers and if this list is allowed to stay, will casue problems for Wikipedia editors, too. Arkyan 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the scope is far too broad. — brighterorange (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am multi-racial too. I think that VERY few people are uni-racial, and the criteria for being multiracial is to have a "source" say you are? What? User: gadavis 20:24 7 March 2007 (utc)
  • Delete per Jules1975, RGTraynor, Krimpet, Arkyan and brighterorange. Way more problematic than "valuable" (cf. WP:LIST purpose 1). Punkmorten 09:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this article is very valuble, and i have used it as a source many times. a source that someone is multiracial is something like this. [1] therefore, it is not too broad because the wikipedians are not the one's deciding who is on this list. it is the multiracial people themselves. i find it very offensive that someone would want to delete this list. in my opinion, it is the very best article on wikipedia, and i'm crying to see it go. Colorfulharp233 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impossible to determine that someone is not of mixed race. Tracing your parents, grandparents etc back through 15 generations gives you over 60,000 direct ancestors. Like to bet that they're all the same race as you? Tt 225 00:19, 9 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) 2007-03-11 09:31Z

Marge Gamer[edit]

Marge Gamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominated this article for deletion per WP:HOAX. As you can see here, google gets no hits for "Marge Gamer" at all. I removed it from the episode list, but I forgot to sign in, so my IP did it instead.Hondasaregood 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: It's not. Go here, click "Books Music, etc." and enter PAu-3-052-403 to confirm it. I created the page and since it has a low production code, it will probably air in April. We have disputed over new episodes before and I can assure you, I am not a vandal and I am a serious editor and when I add things, I make sure they are true. Also, there is a source in the episode page and in the overall episode list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's a source in the Season 18 page as well. -- Scorpion 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did enter the code and did not get anything on this. Sorry, but I don't think this episode exists.Hondasaregood 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Click the "Registration Number" clicky thing before you search and then you'll get it. It works fine for me. -- Scorpion 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The US Copyright office website above does list the following: "Marge Gamer" - The Simpsons JABF10 TV Screenplay - 20th Century fox, etc. " and it is also listed here [50] with the same information. SkierRMH 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this article was nominated per WP:HOAX, this afd should be closed since it has been proven that the episode is in the copyright database. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I was sceptical about this before, but it is definite, so it should remain. Gran2 12:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but for future episodes, could we please wait until we have some verified information other than the episode title. --Maitch 18:36, 9 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. Definitely no deletion. Could use a merge, but plenty of songs have their own article, and someone can always be bold at a later date. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metalingus (song)[edit]

Metalingus_(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gostanford22 (talk • contribs) 2007/03/06 15:35:42

  • Keep bad article though the subject is valid.--Tainter 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a single from a platinum album that has current cultural impact. May I ask the grounds upon which the nom thinks this should be deleted? RGTraynor 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Valid article, and the nominator neither completed the nomination nor gave their opinion on why it should be deleted. Improbcat 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to One Day Remains. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:32Z
  • Keep. The nom has actually not requested the article's deletion. In fact, s/he has written, "do not delete". -- Black Falcon 03:20, 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 Speedy Keep. The version nominated for deletion was a vandalized version. utcursch | talk 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani[edit]

Shivani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Shivani is a student at UC berkeley. She is a TA in Public Health 116. She loves Relay for Life. Shivani Mehta is very active on the UC Berkeley campus and she has also been part of the UC Berkeley Raas Dance team, which won first place in the 2007 dance comp and are ranked 4th in the country. Shivani comes from the Hindu name Shiva. Shivani mean strong, confident, and cheerful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbears9785 (talk • contribs) 2007/03/06 00:52:05

  • Speedy delete per A7.--Tainter 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7, no assertion of notability. No doubt she's a perfectly charming 14-year-old girl, and I'm sure that Myspace will be happy to give her a page. Whoops, screeching halt on that one, thanks, Groggy. After going through the evidence, I'm now satisfied as to the subject's notability. Keep. RGTraynor 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no asertation of notability and non likely. Clearly fails WP:BIO Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! The article was vandalized, I have restored an earlier version. Deletion should be decided on the article's current subject, not the girl student. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears the vandalism should be deleted, but this article should not. Appears notable enough. --Haemo 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is notable in hindi literature.Bakaman 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination was apparently based on the vandalized version. The real one is evidently notable, though it could use sources.DGG 05:22, 8 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 early close and delete because of copyright violation [51]. A remake may be possible. Adam Cuerden talk 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Vithoulkas[edit]

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


Pure advertisement, and appears to be written by the subject, at least at the start. no new material seems to have been added since (Though copyright violation was fixed). Adam Cuerden talk 14:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN, shaky on WP:V. It's amusing that his article claims 80,000 Google hits, which it does ... off of the Greek Google, using his surname alone. Well, heck, if you just Google my surname, it returns over 1.6 million hits. Googling his full name returns eleven hits on US Google. Nice try. RGTraynor 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after Greek naming customs we cannot establish the identity of the subject without the middle name. It is customary to name the fist son after the father's father, the second after the mother's father ... If somebody named George Papadopoulos has six boys, and each has a boy in turn you wind up with six George Papadopoulos in the second generation, which explains the amount of Google hits AlfPhotoman 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD AlfPhotoman 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly also shaky on WP:COI. Some of the references aren't strong. Eg. PubMed lists everything regardless of quality or where it has been published. This is often made as some claim for notability but it isn't. Maustrauser 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute keep This is nuts. Vithoulkas is without question the most famous living homeopath and he has been notable for at least 30 years. His books are considered required reading in the field of homeopathy. He has published many books, written countless journal articles and he lectures around the world. To suggest that we delete him from WP is ridiculous. Can we at least bother to do a simple Google search before we propose an article for deletion (note that there are 44,000 hits for his full name not 11 as RGTraynor incorrectly claims above. Also note that Vithoulkas is often cited by his last name, so the actual number of hits would be much higher.) [52] Did you guys even bother to read the article? The fact that he was honored by various governments for his lifetime of work and that his name appears 500 times on the BBC website might be tiny clues that the guy is notable. --Lee Hunter 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we have some actual evidence of that? And you're using just his surname while RGTraynor was using his full three names. Adam Cuerden talk 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggesting we use three (or more) names (when he's only known by first and last) in a search is either just strange or patently stupid. Why don't you make the minimal effort to actually browse through the Google results for "George Vithoulkas". With the slightest effort it is painfully and blindingly obvious that he is extremely well-known around the world and very well-regarded. By the way, here's his Right Livelihood Award page from the Swedish parliament [53] I also would like to note that you have made a concerted effort to delete a number of articles about well-known homeopaths. Since this is a field with which you are obviously entirely unfamiliar, perhaps you should do a little more research before you launch yourself into a destructive project like this. ---Lee Hunter 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if properly cited and sourced. The subject does appear to more than meet the criteria set out at WP:BIO. Nuttah68 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he is really a famous person in homeopathy; the Right Livelihood Award is a proof that this is also recognised outside the homeopathy world; he wrote many books; many of them were translated in different language (e.g. German); please no fight against medical schools by deleting articles about their most famous representatives; deleting because of Greek naming conventions seems to be a pretence since his middle name is not known internationally (cf. the writing of his name on his books). Dr. Krischer 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have to tell you that George Vithoulkas is one of the greatest practitioners of homeopathic medicine in the world. I know little about the technicalities of Wikipedia, but I do know about homeopathy. His textbook, the Science of Homeopathy is a great book and has remained in print in USA, UK and or India since its original publication in Athens in 1978. I am proud to have a signed copy, which he gave to my uncle Dr K Gardikas, then a professor of medicine and dean of the medical school of Athens University. His work in helping people with severe chronic disease is amazing; Francis Treuherz, Edtor of the Homeopath, journal of the Society of Homeopaths, UK. - Unsigned

We need reliable sources. Noone is offering them. Adam Cuerden talk 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're supposed to assume good intentions, but you've strayed far beyond being merely disingenuous and are now wandering in the land of the trolls. The article (at the time you nominated it for deletion) had a huge list of sources including: Pubmed, Who's Who, Google Scholar, British Library, Papyros-Larousse-Britannica, International Directory of distinguished leadership, National Libary of Medicine Catalog, SCIRUS, the Swedish Parliament, the Hungarian government, [54] the Indian Health Ministry and others. That list was poorly presented but there is no way you can look at that list and tell me that the article "lacked sources" for establishing his notability. If you search for the name "Vithoulkas" in Google you get 95,000 hits. You might argue that some of those hits are for other guys called Vithoulkas but I challenge you to browse through those hits. I can assure you that you will find that roughly 98% of them are for George Vithoulkas the homeopath. --Lee Hunter 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, lets cool this for a moment because the last thing we need is a battle. Articles to be included in Wikipedia need to fulfill certain policies and guidelines, where the adhering to the policies is mandatory and the adherence to guidelines a question of debate. The first policy is WP:N, whereby it has to be proven by second party sources that a subject is notable. The second would be WP:A which says that the content of an article has to be attributable to a second party source. Our problem is that, as is, this article fails at least WP:N because we can hardly say that the Society of Homeopaths would be a second party source as Dr. (Mr.) Vithoulkas would be a member of it. We cannot say that a book written by the person is a second party source. What does certainly not work is first party sources, as any of these would fall under WP:OR. I am always happy to be wrong about the notability of a person but I cannot take the word from someone for it, I need sources. AlfPhotoman 19:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Right Livelyhood Award is a reliable source. Also his book "Science of Homeopathy" is a reliable source. A list of his English books at Amazon.com can be found here ( http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-8489252-5159152?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=vithoulkas&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go ). I think this is also a reliable source. Dr. Krischer 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wonderful, if they are in the article and reliable then, as I said above, Keep AlfPhotoman 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the external website of the Right Livelihood Award as a source has been in the article since before nomination for deletion if anyone wants to read it. Nuttah68 19:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But is it reliable, or particularly notable? It's a small orginisation set up to give out prizes for... well... alternative medicine, the environment, art, etc. [55]. It is *NOT* the Sweedish Parliament as has been claimed around here. Adam Cuerden talk 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute keep: A man who has helped immensly in reviving classical homeopathy for the last 40 years... A man who has tought hundreds of medical doctors from all over the world and has guided them to see humanity's suffering from a totally holistic approach... A man who has written inspiring books and has a collection of international awards topped by the 1996 Alternative Nobel Prize - the Right Livelihood Award, should definately has his place in Wikipedia. As a Medical Doctor, I have little knowledge of the technicalities of this site (as other people have already mentioned above), but I do know about medicine and homeopathy and George Vithoulkas, has his place in Wikipedia (as for internet searches, on Saturday 10th of March 2007, 22:00 GMT, Google returned 48,600 addresses for 'George Vithoulkas', Yahoo returned 57,600 and Live Search 10.393....) Dr Andrew Tsourouktsoglou 22:07, 10 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to Frank Zappa[edit]

Cultural references to Frank Zappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is an indiscriminate collection of information and a directory, seeking to capture every reference to Zappa in every medium with no regard to the importance or triviality of the appearance in the source medium or the real world. Oppose merging the content back into the main Frank Zappa article. Otto4711 14:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, some of this stuff is interesting, but not terribly important. Keep as a useful and necessary list. ObtuseAngle 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument for keeping. All sorts of things are useful while still being unencyclopedic. And I dispute that a list of every time Frank Zappa is name-checked in any form of media is "useful." Otto4711 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that's not what this list is in its entrirety. Zappa has an extensive filmography which is scarcely referenced in his main article, for instance. I agree, it's not noteworthy every time a garage band namechecks Zappa in a song, but that's an argument for editing and sourcing the article, not for deleting it. ObtuseAngle 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like any artist, his TV/film appearances would go into his filmography, which doesn't exactly belong in Frank Zappa discography or Frank Zappa (length issue). Note that these appearances are not mere cultural references but directly relevant to the man himself, and should be considered separately from this article. If delete, merge it somewhere. All those species and other things named after him are notable; they didn't just name those things after him so the information could be hidden. If delete, merge this last section into Frank Zappa. The song references do need explanations and sources, but each reference is important and non-trivial - how easy would it be to confuse a reference to Frank Zappa for some odd coincidence? This list is quite discriminate; it has a clear scope and will not achieve unmaintainable size. If you cut out the supposedly "trivial" references, then it becomes too discriminate in a POV way. –Pomte 19:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not a filmography. If it were a properly sourced filmography I would have no issue with it. This is a collection of every reference to the man bunged together. We have deleted similar articles for Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Aerosmith, Rush, Aleister Crowley and others for being similarly bunged together lists. Otto4711 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that a collection of every reference to this particular man is quite an encyclopedic subject. Your precedents form an indiscriminate collection of AfDs and a directory, seeking to capture every case that could serve to favor a bandwagon with no regard to the notability of the individual articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia (3rd nomination) for a counterexample. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a cute entry. It was adorable how you took my words and repurposed them to try to discredit the arguments for deletion. Got anything to say that actually pertains to the nomination? Otto4711 04:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below for my comment. I would also like to direct you to this page. People will disagree with you ... deal with it (and move on). I know you have valid reasons for not doing a bulk nomination, but when you nominate articles separately, each will be considered on its own merits. As much as I hate the name of that redirect, it can make a point quite strongly: WP:OTHERCRAPWASDELETED is not a valid reason to delete this article unless the articles are identical in nature. Obviously, there is disagreement about the extent to which they are identical. I am also posting a comment on your talk page. -- Black Falcon 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep failing that a selective merge. Some of the information is useful enough to be worked into the main Frank Zappa article; like films he has made cameo appearances in, however, films where his music has merely been in the background do not deserve a mention. Some of the stuff in the comic strip section is notable, but it does need references. I don't find the "In songs" section notable, but the "Things named after Zappa" section is indeed very notable - there's not a lot of people that can say several animals, among other things, have been named after them, though some of what's listed needs refs. ĤĶ51→Łalk 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you thought this belonged in the Zappa article I have to ask why you forked it off to begin with. Otto4711 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's irrelevant to this discussion. But anyway, I didn't say it all belonged in the Zappa article, I said some stuff could be worked back into the main Zappa article if it is to be deleted. ĤĶ51→Łalk 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it kind of is relevant, since it contradicts in large measure your stated reason for wanting to keep this article or merge any of its contents back where it came from. Otto4711 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how it contradicts my stated for wanting to keep the article; I never stated this information belonged in the Zappa article, just that parts of it can be merged if need be. ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BHTT and WP:AVTRIV. If the best or only reason for an article full of trivia is to keep it out of the main article then the trivia article should be deleted. The solution to crap information in an article is to delete it, not fork it off and make it into someone else's problem. Note that a number of "...in popular culture" articles (including the ones I linked above and many others) are being deleted. Otto4711 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number are being kept. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most are being deleted. Otto4711 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - people have already started referencing this, this is our chance for an encyclopedic article on the subject. Also, per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, WP:LIST is not the end-all be-all. If a list is otherwise unacceptable, then letter-perfect conformity with WP:LIST does not save it. Otto4711 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not indisciminate. It's about Frank Zappa and relted cultural references. - Peregrine Fisher 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the Hendrix list was about Hendrix and cultural references. Deleted as indiscriminate. The Who list was about the Who and cultural references. Deleted as indiscriminate. The Aerosmith list was about Aerosmith and cultural references. Deleted as indiscriminate. The C96 list, the Semtex list, the Calvin and Hobbes list, and on and on, all lists about the subject and cultural references. All deleted as indiscriminate. Otto4711 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then do a bulk nomination to settle the matter. This stand-alone nomination implies that we should analyze the importance of this particular article only. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every pop culture article is as poor as this one. A mass nom would get bogged down and would accomplish nothing. Otto4711 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not every reference to him needs to be mentioned. Whatever's notable can go in the main Frank Zappa article. Chevinki 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, we would need criteria for which items is notable and explain why the ones leftover are not. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the current version indeed is unsatisfactory, I find lot of the information useful. I guess this is not the place to discuss the justice of other similiar pages being deleted. We should focus on this one.(I could, but won't, come up with lots of examples of articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted but are not - this is also irrelevant here.) The article could in my opinion be a nice piece about the influences of Frank Zappa on media and society in general. I will be happy to help out when time permits. --HJ 09:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument in favor of keeping an article.Otto4711 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Point taken. Then just stick with the rest of my entry, and forget about this bad word. As I see all the guidelines, they are all rely - to some extent - on subjectivity in the end. Well, I think the article is worth improving istead of deleting.--HJ 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent reasons given by Pomte and others. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having participated in a number of the other "in popular culture" and "cultural reference" article, I can say that none of the lists included such notable things as species being named after a person. A merge may be appropriate, but it is better to determine that on the talk page rather than AFD. -- Black Falcon 03:39, 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 speedy deleted as an utterly implausible search term. Mangojuicetalk 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha beta gamma delta epsilon zeta eta theta iota kappa lambda mu nu xi omicron pi rho sigma tau upsilon phi chi psi omega[edit]

Alpha beta gamma delta epsilon zeta eta theta iota kappa lambda mu nu xi omicron pi rho sigma tau upsilon phi chi psi omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Highly unlikely that anyone will ever type this exact string of words. Also, when searching for Greek organizations and societies that don't have articles, this one shows up at the top of the suggest list (when no one searching for a fraternity will need). OverMyHead 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is just the greek alphabet in order. Perhaps have it redirect to the Greek Alphabet page? [[TheAngriestPharmacist]] 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unlikely search term, and article has no content. This probably doesn't even AFD based on what's there now. 23skidoo 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be at redirects for deletion since the only reason it isn't a redirect now is because you added that sentence saying "formerly a redirect". Recury 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could/should be, but as I didn't know that WP:RFD existed, I put it here. (I removed the actual redirect because I thought that it would prevent the AFD notice from showing up.) OverMyHead 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the redirect. --UsaSatsui 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: What a useless article. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Looks like someone who doesn't understand how the wiki search engine works. Improbcat 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and send it to WP:RFD where this belongs (I'd say kill it, though).--UsaSatsui 16:26, 7 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. Jersey Devil 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakcore artists[edit]

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

Unmanageable list, full of redlinks, seems to be a magnet for any breakcore artist trying to make a name for themselves with a wiki page. Improbcat 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or massive trimming and merge into breakcore article as a Examples of notable artists section. This list is likely to remain unmanageable especially since the main breakcore article states what is and isn't breakcore is arguable. Improbcat 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATT. No sources in this article at all, lat alone any that identify any artist listed as breakcore. Otto4711 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many people removing and later re-adding artist (some of which are not breakcore) is confusing, and annoying. Keiron22 20:21, 10 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. - Bobet 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet[edit]

Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod with the edit comment of 'notable'. This article is a biography where the only claim to notability is the title, Baronet. The title, although 'it is a hereditary honour', it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords'. This means that the title has no claim to notability based on heridtary right of input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems. So, whilst the first holder of the title may have (had) a claim to notability through the title, all subsequent holders claim to notability based on the title is that a family member may have been notable. Long established consensus is that 'notability cannot gained from relationship' and 'Wikipedia is not a genealogical database'. As the article offers no other claims to notability the subject fails WP:BIO and as the article offers no sources per WP:ATT it also fails policy. Nuttah68 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page is a vanity page. Sir Keith Arbuthnot has no notability bar his hereditary title. It's quite clearly a vanity page. Just because some Baronets are notable doesn't mean this particular chap is. Florence Nightingale, for example, was notable - but that doesn't automatically mean wee Jeanie from the Southern General is notable because she happens to be a nurse also. No offence to nurses, by the way, first example that came to mind. Vanity page, get it off. T.Ball.CFC 00:55 13 March 2007 (GMT)
(this is the first edit from this editor--Vintagekits 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually I can assure you this is not a vanity page. I know him and (1) he is not marginally vain and (2) he is intensely private. WP:AGF - Kittybrewster 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can you pleae confirm what if any family reltionship this person is to you?--Vintagekits 12:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so close. You work it out. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominator here, about whom I can find virtually no information, has been accused on his talk page of "abusing the speedy deletion process by nominating articles that are not clear targets for speedy deletion." He appears from that page's contents to be very busy in deleting other editor's work. David Lauder 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, If I was you I would not worry about the editor who has nominated I would concentrate on proving some sort of notability other the inheriting a minor title.--Vintagekits 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Well, you're not me, and your sneering comment about "minor titles" (I take you don't have one?) is also uncalled for. I am indeed worried about editors who are deleting pages all over the place. Do you have no respect for the overall project here? David Lauder 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you've lost me! what sneering? Baronet is a minor title! What overall project? As for title - I am a Volunteer what are you?--Vintagekits 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the usual abusive and dismissive tone this editor has employed since his first day on Wikipedia, as well as his direct assertion of involvement in a terrorist organization ("I am a Volunteer" has but one meaning in this context). These provocations and this hatemongering unprofessionalism should no longer be tolerated.O'Donoghue 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, before you go any further, and also WP:TPG. Bold should be avoided. (And the St. Vincent de Paul is not a terrorist organisation.) Tyrenius 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Volunteer is neither a title nor a rank. - Kittybrewster 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Well I can assure you I do not seek or wish to have a title but the guys down in the St. Vincent de Paul appreciate the time and help I give! Now back to proving notability for this dude - have you got any proof of notability? otherwise I am going to leave me !vote for delete or merge.--Vintagekits 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Numerous references to him in non-genealogical books. - Kittybrewster 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm referenced in numerous sources, phone book, electoral register, dispatches, ship's log, promotion boards and so on. However, none of these establish notability. Would you care to add to the article text and references that explain the subjects notability? Nuttah68 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Was it necessary for you to respond in such a sneering manner here? David Lauder 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, he is not sneering simply pointing out that just because he is mentioned this does not mean he is mentioned for anything notable. If you read the Baronet page you will see that it states "A baronetcy is unique in two ways: *it is a hereditary honour but is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords; and
  • a baronet is styled 'Sir' but a baronetcy is not considered an order of knighthood." I think this shows it is a minor title and does not convey notability.--Vintagekits 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and they do not confer notability either. This guy is listed in a some books as just being alive (along with 1,000's of others with minor titles) - there is zero "depth of coverage" which a requirement of WP:BIO and ghits for "Sir Keith Arbuthnot" are mirrors.--Vintagekits 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't even say what his occupation is; "baronet" is a title, not a career. --Metropolitan90 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a baronet is announced at a function people don't run up to him and ask him what his career is! Being a baronet is notable in itself. David Lauder 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per Kitty. Baronets give the holder, and their families, a place in the Order of precedence in both England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 16:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Because, as the Wikipedia page on this points out, "Order of Precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of people", so either they are important enought to be in that order, or not. Is it your suggestion that regardless of whether a State regards someone as important, you don't, and you wish Wikipedia to adopt a similar policy? David Lauder 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Baronets are part of the traditional society and fabric of England (and other parts of the UK) and this sort of information should be available online in Wikipedia, it consumes very little in resources. --Gibnews 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, - So are dustman and chimney sweeps! Maybe we should have an article on each of them also!?! As for your asertion that "it consumes very little in resources" - that is not a valid argument to keep this article. Please try and base you !votes on wiki policy.--Vintagekits 11:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Baronets are generally of inherent interest. If this article were to be expanded it should improve. It should not be deleted.--Counter-revolutionary 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we please base !votes on Wiki policy and not on whether or not you "like it" or not as the case my be. Inheriting the title of Baron or Baronet is not in itself noteworthy and therefore fails WP:BIO and even the defunct proposal of WP:NOBLE. I will look at this again in a few days before I !vote but unless some other form of notability can be proven that does not relate to simply holding one or more honorary titles then I am leaning towards delete. Also adding "strong keep" as two editor have done above on the basis that this person is a Baron is in my opinion showing strong signing of POV rather than basing !votes on wiki policy.--Vintagekits 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Firstly, a baronetcy and a barony are differen things. All barons are automatically notable in Wikipedia, as all were, until recently politicians also. This has nothing to do with being "honourary", which is a word meaningless in this concept. Of couse editors have to express PoV here, without a point of view as to whether the article should be kept it would be impossible to comment at all! --Counter-revolutionary 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, - Counter-revolutionary you state that "All barons are automatically notable in Wikipedia" - can you show me where it states this in wiki policy?--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BIO suggests that "politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures" are automatically notable. In the UK, a Baron until recently had an automatic right to sit in the national upper legislature.--Counter-revolutionary 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So thats Baron's covered but its NOT Baronet's. --Vintagekits 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Also, WP:BIO says he is notable if he is part of the "enduring historical record". Aren't noblemen part of the enduring historical record? Davidicke 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not unless they satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO which most do as they got a seat in the House of Lords - which Baronets dont!--Vintagekits 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whatever you think about the British honours system (and I sense that some contributors to this discussion are against it: I confess I myself find it significantly batty and, on a serious note, potentially corrupting) it is a part of public life in the UK that seems to interest plenty of folks in UK and anglophone places which used to be 'owned' by UK. These guys enjoy disproportionate influence to the irritation of some and the delight (presumably) of others, but wiki is (I hope) concerned with facts much more than with reactions to facts (until of course those reactions become facts in their own right: but that's an extract from another discussion). If those people who buy and consult Burke's and its ilk in libraries and record offices google their interest on-line, it would be nice for wiki to be in the 'market' for their 'e-custom'. So please keep it. But please, someone who knows, expand it. The guy must have done something interesting since leaving uni, and if he was really such a blushing violet he surely would not have let them give him an entry in Who's Who. Or? Charles01 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are well over 1,000 baronets, and if they are notable, then so are all Knights of different hues, etc, and there's a lot of them. Are baronets really *automatically* notable? EliminatorJR Talk 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment >1 000 minor British aristocrats automatically notable? Clearly not. The fact that they appear in widely distributed works of reference (Burke's, Who's Who...) suggests that someone somewhere thinks them potentially notable. The fact that those works of reference are provided for consultation in libraries in UK and (especially) those corners of the Anglosphere where for good and bad reasons many people have a warm fuzzy feeling for British tradition (ok, I'm thinking of most of Canada outside of Quebec, but I think it also applies elsewhere) suggests either that the acquisiton policies of those libraries are wrong or else that people are interested. Should they be interested? Is that a question for us to ask? Should all >1 000 baronets get a wiki article? Only if a wiki contributor (who is also, presumably, a more than averagely committed wiki reader) bothers to write one. Several people seem to have bothered to contribute to the article on Arbuthnot, tho I agree that no one seems to have found anything very compelling to write about him. But that's my judgement (and I guess yours). Will all >1 000 baronets get a wiki article? Same answer: seems unlikely. That applies across all categories: there are thousands of academics who deserve a wiki article. Some get them: some don't. Ditto medieval bishops. Ditto very small towns in Ohio. There is a wiki constituency who think Arbuthnot is interesting: we disagree. Maybe we disagree about other much more important issues about which we both feel much more passionately: I hope we are not going to move from that to seek to restrict one another's rights to express our opinion. The web offers huge possibilities for opening up knowledge: it's impossible to know which bits of knowledge will be most valued in five or fifty years time. But the troubling aspect is the way that by commonising our knowledge database, the web is actually being used to try and impose sets of politically convenient values on the rest of us. I think that this does not lie comfortably with the wiki mind-set. Or am I wrong about the wiki mindset? Ah, well... Have a nice day anyhow. Charles01 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Can you please stick to outlining how this person is notable as per wiki policy. You state that "Several people seem to have bothered to contribute to the article on Arbuthnot, tho I agree that no one seems to have found anything very compelling to write about him." therefore you do not think that he is notable. It sound like you are arguing in favour of a merge to Arbuthnot baronets rather than a keep. Can you please make it clear why exaclty you think that this person in notable--Vintagekits 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has stated "keep".--Counter-revolutionary 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whos Who entry and I'm persuaded by the arguments about the place of the Baronet in the UK Weggie 20:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Who's Who is not a reliable source as pre WP:RS each of the sections are self written and not checked by an editor - this section is from the Who's Who (UK) article and speaks volumes! -

"Who's Who has been criticised for being too old-fashioned. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people, such as some leading footballers, are not. Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source, because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. This has resulted in notable biographical omissions; for example, the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry. Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his." --Vintagekits 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, out of interest I went and looked at a copy of Who's Who 2007 and Debretts just to see what level of depth it goes into on people. Firstly Debrett's - this is 1,797 pages - with approximately 13 entries per page and the Sir Keith Arbutnott entry does not state anything notable about him only when he was born and the names of his family members.
Who's Who - this is pretty much the same book as far as I can see just with even more people, the UK edition alone is 2,529 pages long this year and it has on average 16 people listings or referral's per page - you do the math on the amount of people in it then. Each page is split into two columns with 100 lines per column so that 200 lines per page (over half a million lines in the book). The entry for this person is 6 lines long in one column - that includes a line for his name and address of where they live - the other four lines include where he went to school and the names of his family members inc. ex. wife. In fact the article is almost word for word what is the article except it has no crest shown and it uses abbreviations for much of the textile. There is no mention of anything notable that he achieved except that he went to university. Both entries in both books are identical as far as I can see - are they connected in some way or compiled in the same way?
Anyway in both the is no depth of coverage and there is also no assertion of notability.--Vintagekits 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Charles01's assessment of why we should have articles on people like this. Proteus (Talk) 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person went to college and got married, twice, and fatherd children. That is all that is claimed besides having trivial directory listings based on who his father was. There is no "inherent notability" policy which lets such nonnotable persons have articles, any more than the son of a politician would be inherently notable enough for an article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Only appears to satisfy "ILIKEIT" on the part of persons enthralled by titles. "Order of precedence" apparently implies where he gets to sit at the dinner table based on who his father was, which does not dictate encyclopedic notability. It is not a line of succession to be head of state. Edison 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. You could say Elizabeth II only got married and has trivial directory listings based on who her father was. Jcuk 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, there are actually articles on things Elizabeth did with her life which were productive and which were controversial. She has also been a character in a movie which gained an actress an Academy Award. She also has served as a constitutional monarch. Perhaps you are thinking of her distant relatives who are claimed to be notable solely on the basis of their birth. Edison 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, - Jcuk, your comparision with Elizabeth II is a pretty flawed argument. E2 was a monarch and has had books written solely about her.--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yes, I've even got coins in my pocket with her face stamped on them. She has a highway in Canada named after her too. Davidicke 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets. Catchpole 10:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. WP:N is a guideline only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The nominator of this AfD states although "it is a hereditary honour, it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords'. This means that the title has no claim to notability based on hereditary right of input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems." He is wrong in this opinion because all hereditary titles in Britain are notable. Today, 2007, no member of the peerage is entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. The Baronetage is always listed along with the Peerage in all publications and apart from the old right of a seat in The House, they are regarded as both noble and part of the titled aristocracy. Today they are on an entirely level playing field with the peerage. No member of the peerage or baronetcies has ever had "a hereditary right of input in the British legal systems", unless it was passing legislation. This baronet appears in Debrett's Distinguished People of Today, the editors of which contend, in an article in The Guardian (6 Feb 89), contains "the most distinguished people in the country - all those listed truly deserve their place".

I would also contend that deleting biography stubs like this goes against the ethos of the Wikipedia Baronetcies project and will upset the lineage. What should be called for here is not deletion but further research and input to expand the article. David Lauder 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, so are you asking us to ignore wiki guidelines in favour of what? and given your comment above don’t you think that considering your comment here when you state that Debretts is not a reliable source but now you are using it as a source that you are hypocritical and voting on the basis or what you like or not and on the basis of wiki policy. Arn't the entries in Debretts actually written by the people themselves?--Vintagekits 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to The Guardian article of 1989 their editors said that they themselves select notables for their publication. That was 1989 and the publication I cited from was 1988. I knew David Williamson and when he was editor things were done differently. The point here is not what was said on other AfDs but what is being said here. I was answering the remark on notability made by the nominator and I believe that I correctly answered that. David Lauder 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets as suggested by Catchpole, above. Just so nobody accuses me of being against the British honours system, I happen to rather like it, but I believe that on the evidence currently presented, this person's notability is entirely due to the title, and is therefore adequately described on the page to which the redirect might be made. As a slight aside, consider the spirit of WP:ORG (section 3.1.1) with regard to subsidiary organisations; these are grouped with their national body. A similar system would neatly cover all future issue in this line, and separate articles will be quite in order if any of these people do something interesting and notable by Wikipedia standards. – Kieran T (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • either keep or kieran T's redirect. I would think a title conferred by a monarch should mean something to notability, but then again, a majority of living UK baronets do not even have a Wikipedia page. I'm hesitant to suggest outright deletion just because, if otherwise-unnotable Baronets should be deleted, what does that mean for the 50,000 indie-rock bands mentioned on Wikipedia? Who will be more important 100 years from now? Davidicke 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a redirect to the Arbuthnot Baronets is fine. I have no problem with an article for the title and articles for notable holders of the title. Where it seems faintly stupid, is splitting an article out from the Arbuthnot Baronets (or any other Baronet page) when there is nothing more of note to add. Nuttah68 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has 5 external independent sources. The fact that he is listed in Debrett's Distinguished People of Today (for example) must indicate some degree of notability, surely? We must rely on secondary sources such as these to determine notability, rather than judging it for ourselves. JulesH 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe we can consider Debrett's – worthy publication though it may be – to be a granter of notability, because their criteria are different from ours; specifically, they are more interested in notability by reason of title than we have yet decided (by consensus) to be. – Kieran T (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have decided, by consensus, that anyone considered worth commenting on by multiple independent reliable sources is notable. So the fact that Debrett's et al consider this person worth publishing information about does influence whether wikipedia (by consensus) considers the person notable. 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
comment I agree he's notable - but, if he is only notable for his title and ancestry, then perhaps he and his predecessors should have their articles merged into the article Arbuthnot Baronets? As for the question of Debrett, I'd suggest notability is not subjective - a secondary source reputable on this particular topic should suffice for establishing notability, as long as it makes more than a trivial mention of him. If Debrett's is reputed, and if the entry is non-trivial, that should be swell, yes? Davidicke 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to a comment: Not really. Sorry to appear argumentative. But the famous Debrett's publication (from which I suspect their others are in part drawn) is basically a list of certain types of ranks, with a bit of pertinent info on the entries. Publication in a book doesn't equal notable, no matter how true or reputable. – Kieran T (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets in line with the comments Catchpole, this person is from a somewhat notable family but as we know from wiki precedent you do gain notability because of your relationship to others. Secondly this person has never been involved in any event of note or held any role of note and this should be a warning to editors about allowing individuals an article simply because of an inherited title. People should have to adhere to WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:BLP if they are to have an article - this individual does neither. This an encyclopaedia not a genealogy service.--Vintagekits 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou appear to wish to speak "to editors" from a position of superiority which, alas, does not accrue to you. I would say from reading your comments on this page you are biased against people with titles. As you are so repetitive, I shall join you: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. WP:N is a guideline only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I think that if you have an axe to grind you should remove it from Wikipedia, instead of trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover. David Lauder 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover" - maybe my comments just sound superior because I use wiki policies to make my decisions instead on POV.--Vintagekits 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

  • Keep It appears, in the main, that the 'deleters' do not give much importance to titles inherited from the past whereas the 'keepers' wish to perpetuate our British history. An encyclopedia is to colate and impart knowledge and if it is with data on the past it should be encouraged and supported as: it is our past which forges our future. Alastair Noble 02:39, 9 March 2007
  • 9th edit by this user. Tyrenius 03:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • To the admin closing this AfD, please note a number of editors who have !voted on this !vote have been involved in vote canvassing and now what another administrator has called “lock step” voting. Over the past months a number of editors have been accused of !voting on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users such as Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder, Major Bonkers but at times have also included Fraslet and to a lesser extent Weggie and Gibnews and also El chulito and Inthegloaming who I very strongly suspect are/were socks.

All of the above can by generally stated as voting within the anti Irish republican and pro British unionist/ monarchist.

It started with Astrotrain nominating a number of Volunteers from the Provisional Irish Republican Army and canvassing during those !votes. [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour [63]

Since then there has been what I consider a systematic abuse of the AfD system with a number of a same editors arriving at an AfD on a subject which they either like or dislike and voting to delete or keep on POV rather then wiki policy. The first AfD that occur was –

James McDade AfD Nominated by Astrotrain. Result – ‘’’Keep’’’ 13 votes to Keep and 1 to Delete – that vote by as Astrotrain – therefore 100% of the delete !votes from “the group”.

Then [Montgomery] – this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. However Tyrenius ended the AfD because of a source that stated that Montgomery was involved in a murder.

Then Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 7 votes and Delete 7 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 71% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Martin McGartland AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 10 votes and Delete 1 votes – that of Astrotrains

Then Diarmuid O’Neill AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – No consensus, This is where the real vote staking operation started and canvassing came into effect. Keep 20 votes and Delete 10 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. Note the first eight !votes were to Keep and that is when the canvassing started and since then there has been almost total lock step.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then we had a AfD of a biography relating to a member of the “British nobility”. This was the Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot AfD, this AfD was nominated by Argyriou on the basis of non notability. Result – Delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 9 votes – 3 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 75% of the votes to keep from “the group” in an article that was deleted

Again back to an Irish republican and the Martin_McCaughey AfD, this AfD was nominated by Tyrenius on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 16 votes and Delete 12 votes – 7 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 58% of the votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Similar behaviour and calls for deletion in an number of AfD’s of members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade such as the Tony Gormley AfD – bios of each of those that were merged not deleted can be seen on the of the bottom of the page that they were merged to.

The Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain received no delete votes and result was speedy keep'.

The Republic UK AfD, an anti monarchy organisation where they all !voted delete for an article that was kept.

There are on going AfD’s which the same pattern at the Federal_Commonwealth_Society| (here is where admin MrDarcy highlights this potential stalk voting), Lady_Mabel_Fitzwilliam and now here.--Vintagekits 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What a scandalous load of rubbish. So every time the same editors appear on an AfD they are all in collusion or have been canvassing? If that is the case we could probably list dozens of AfDs where the same (but other) editors have appeared. this is a childish and infantile attempt to do nothing other than cause trouble and to cast others in a bad light. David Lauder 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, No scandal, no rubbish - facts provided to prove canvassing and a pattern of POV block voting - this is making a mockery of the whole AfD system.--Vintagekits 11:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and how many of these votes have you participated in, Vintagekits? [Luke 6:42]. --Major Bonkers 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Martin McGartland seems proof Vintage is wrong again. - Kittybrewster 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeto Arbuthnot Baronets. To be honest, this whole issue really needs to be looked at by an experienced Admin because it's somewhat ridiculous. Minor members of the British aristocracy ARE NOT NOTABLE unless they've got some other notability reason, and while we're at it, the same goes for members of Northern Irish paramilitary organisations as well.EliminatorJR Talk 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion ONLY but others differ in this. David Lauder 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, article should be judged on WP:BIO, WP:BLP and WP:N.--Vintagekits 02:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 7th Baronet or whoever is notable in their own right, or, better still to Arbuthnot Baronets. It is being argued that the Baronetcy in itself is the notable feature, so that should be the article and the numbered Baronets can be integrated in it. It can also provide a history of the origin and any changes in family home etc.. If any Baronet is individually notable for particular achievements (in the way of Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet for example), then they can also have their own article. The present policy just creates numerous short articles with no real information in them, apart from a directory listing of offspring. This is an inefficient way to present information for those interested in the subject, who will have to click through several articles to gain very little information for their labours. Tyrenius 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Most people with titles have a hard time having a normal life. Publishing people's personal details on the internet without their permission is outrageous. If someone wants a low profile, let them have one. 82.153.118.101
  • First edit by this anon. Tyrenius 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Quite agree. There is nothing here that is not sourced public domain info. - Kittybrewster 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wasn't going to comment, but as Vintagekits has referred to me, above, as part of his mythical block of like-minded !voters, I feel released from my self-imposed silence. Would that some others had my self-restraint. Anyway: reason for keeping - article is clearly stated to be a stub, requests help, and needs extra work. No doubt the proposer of this AfD can come back and have a look in 6 months. Biographical articles can be hard to research - in fact, it's amazing how many rely on inadequate citations. Editors on this article need to be cut a little slack.--Major Bonkers 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, the proposer of this AfD is not prepared to come back later. The article has already been in existence since June '06 (9 months) and no one has been able to provide references confirming notability. Even a stub must provide references per WP:ATT and 9 months is more than enough time to do this. Nuttah68 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Untrue. Three of the most "reliable sources" on persons of notability carry this baronet and all three are cited. If there is a time limit within Wikipedia's rules as to how long a stub may stay up unexpanded then please point us to it. David Lauder 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a stub needs to show notability, particularly when challenged at an AfD. If all the people endorsing keep are unable to add substantially to the article it effectively invalidates their position, which becomes merely an opinion. Tyrenius 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:It is "the opinion" of three of the most prominent works on important people in the UK that this baronet is notable. They are cited on the article page. If that is not sufficient, how many do you require? David Lauder 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Who’s Who, published annually since 1849 and the first biographical book of its kind, is among the world’s most recognised and respected works of reference. The UK Who's Who is the mother of all works on notability. The phrase 'Who's Who of' has passed into the English language due to this publication, and all the other biographical works arond the world can trace their ancestry to it. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about people who would be instantly rejected for inclusion by the Who's Who selection board. Who's Who is the ultimate reference concerning notability. To say no references concerning notability have been provided is ridiculous. Invariably when you see politicians, artists, writers being interviewed on television in front of their bookcase you see the big red copy of Who's Who sitting there. Concerning inaccurate comments above, a baronetcy is not a species of Knighthood because a baronet outranks all knights except Knights of the Garter, so not being a species of knighthood is a reflection of the importance of the rank rather than otherwise. Anyone who is in Who's Who has the ultimate reference concerning notability. It trumps all others by an order of magnitude. People may not like it, but thats the way the world is. AnnabelBuxton 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see absolutely no reason why Wikipedia should defer to another publication's decisions on notability, however well-known. If a subject doesn't meet WP notability criteria, there's no way that "being in Who's Who" should be able to save them. Also, Who's Who contains some pretty obscure people. EliminatorJR Talk 11:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment but WP's primary notability criterion is being mentioned in other reputable publications; this makes your argument essentially meaningless. JulesH 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because Wikipedia is about the real world. Not about some imaginary world like second life. Let's take the example of popular music musicians. Everyone with a top 40 hit seems entitled to a page on Wikipedia. How many people is that 30,000 probably, but for the sake of argument let's say 3000. Well about 30 pop stars make it into Who's Who. So for Who's Who the criteria for inclusion are two orders of magnitude tougher. The wikipedia criteria are "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered" - thats WHY you should 'defer' to the most widely accepted reference on notability in the UK. AnnabelBuxton 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact there are only 30 pop artists in Who's Who, but thousands of minor members of the nobility, proves my point, in that Who's Who necessarily has inbuilt POV. It also includes many figures in industry, finance, academia etc. who would also fail Wikipedia notability guidelines. An example: the front page of Who's Who website gives some people from the publication who have birthdays today. Today's 'notable people'a reporter & internet columnist, the current CEO of Scottish Water, and the General Secretary of Churches Together in England Notable? Perhaps, perhaps not. Another point - is only Who's Who UK allowed? What about the US version, where you can nominate people for inclusion? Also, you've quoted WP above "...the depth of coverage..." part. A simple "this person exists" entry in Who's Who doesn't qualify for that. EliminatorJR Talk 12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The inbuilt POV of Who's Who is that of mainstream UK society. That is why people shell out £125 a copy for it and it is on the bookshelf of almost every politician, judge, journalist, writer, artist etc in the UK. Anyone can be nominated in the UK too. You can even nominate yourself, but nomination is a very different matter to inclusion. If your Worldview/POV is restricted to music and football, then that's fine, trying to impose that worldview on other's isn't fine. There are I think 28,000 people in Who's Who out of a population of sixty million. Save up and buy a copy, or go to your Library. Wikipedia is not a working class revolutionary movement, so reflecting the views of mainstream society is perfectly acceptable. AnnabelBuxton 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sorry, but the people in Who's Who do not in any way, shape or form represent "mainstream British society". I'm not arguing at all that musicians or footballers are necessarily more or less notable than minor nobility, but the former have their own criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (see many, many previous AfDs) and so should the latter. Incidentally, your use of the phrase "working class revolutionary movement" indicates that you are trying to impose your own POV on this AfD. EliminatorJR Talk 13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They represent the mainstream consensus on notability. Obviously they are not mainstream themselves, otherwise two thirds of the populaton would be in there. I am sorry if I offended you, I was simply trying to point out that your worldview may have been influenced by your environment. You should be very proud of your background, while accepting that it may have given you a perspective not shared by all. Also Baronets are the sixth rung of the Nobiles Majores. They are not minor. We don't really have minor nobility in the UK. Unlike the continent where they do have bucketfuls of aristocrats. AnnabelBuxton 14:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, No it doesnt reflect society - Who's Who is not a reliable source as pre WP:RS each of the sections are self written and not checked by an editor - this section is from the Who's Who (UK) article and speaks volumes! -

"Who's Who has been criticised for being too old-fashioned. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people, such as some leading footballers, are not. Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source, because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. This has resulted in notable biographical omissions; for example, the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry. Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his." --Vintagekits 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending a wider debate on notability as it applies to Baronets. To my mind, notability of people does not just come from their own actions; it also comes from their position in life, which may not have been earned but which is there nonetheless. The fact that a significant number of people consider Baronets to be worthy of record and study is a mark of notability, whether or not others disagree. Can I also add that I am not interested in a debate here on my !vote on this deletion debate, and that any comments added in disagreement with my !vote will be ignored. Sam Blacketer 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Just Heditor review 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary to this point
Arguments in favour of keep - 16
Arguments in favour of keep or redirect- 1
Arguments in favour of redirect/merge - 4 (+1 anon)
Arguments in favour of delete - 3
- Kittybrewster 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, I would also note that a number of !keep votes are from those who have been involved in canvassing amongest each other and also a number of other !keep votes from with other highly suspicious activity - i.e. no activity from a number of month and then they reappear to !vote here which is a strong sign of 1. that they are a sock or 2. that there is canvassing activity elsewhere outside of wiki. Putting that aside this is not a democratic vote it is the strength of the argument that counts and many of the above are basising the keep !vote of that basis that he is a Baronet which has been shown that it is not automatically notable unlike a Baron which gets a seat in the Upper Houses of the UK parliment --Vintagekits 15:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those arguments are worse than weak, they are wrong. Most Barons and other peers do NOT get seats in the upper houses of parliament. Both peers and baronets have to have their claims verified by the UK Government home office, upon being proven their are entered on the Roll Of Peers or Baronets, and take their rank in UK Society according to the order of precedence which is enshrined in law. If the UK were like the Italian Republic where there is no government verification or recognition of titles or their rank then you would have a point, as it is please research your statements. If you are using length of service on Wikipedia as a mark of importance, then you can't exactly deny the British aristocracy their importance in English society can you. As Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm, you can't get rid of elitism, you can only replace one form with another. AnnabelBuxton 11:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AnnabelBuxton is not quite right here. Until 1999, Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom were automatically eligible for a seat in the House of Lords, subject only to a) "proving" their claim to the title, and b) applying for a "writ of summons" (which is a purely formal step). As Annabel correctly notes, Baronets are also subject to the requirement to prove their claims, and a baronetcy does not make a person eligible for a seat in the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there needs to be a wider debate on the inclusion of baronets who, like Sir Keith here, have no other claim to notability other than being baronets; This issue should not keep coming up in AfD test cases and then never enter the lexicon of policy. We need consistency of approach to these articles, which means a general debate. --New Progressive 12:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. Craigy (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - God bless all here. Some observations on three fronts. First, Wikipedia itself. It has become voluminous, but its quality does not approach its size. Rather like a cyberspace Wal-Mart. Some of the articles are wrong, and there are limits to the iterative/reiterative process. The beast grows, but it may not be improving. Second, the editing. Nuttah68 gives his game away in his first several words. “Contested prod with the edit comment of ‘notable’.” Is this a frank admission of religious prejudice or what? After that sterling intro, he lapses into a jarring imitation of a Prussian lawyer examining precedents and logic. Come on, Nuttah, you don’t care about rules and practice; you want to bloody a “prod” nose. On that last point, I happen to agree with you. I’d like to start with Rowan Williams. Perhaps we could discuss our shared views in a less public venue. Whatever our shared opinions, neither of us is justified in acting on them and then attempting to hide them behind rules which, however hard one tries, do not come in one size that fits all. Perhaps you and I – and Vintagekits – could work together on a similar censorship campaign, but one that’s all to the public good. (I, too, find I can be self-righteous when my prejudices and actions coincide, in the interest of rightness as I see it.) As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is no source, and at least one university history department has banned its use. It has some articles that are so erroneous as to be hilariously funny. One of these is entitled “Cassiques.” Take a look at it. It contains the names of people that never existed. It also contains a number of Ascendancy prods from the years shortly after the Boyne. The Church of Ireland Arthur family from Limerick. The Church of Ireland Bayly family from Ballinaclough. Honored (allegedly, in the Arthur case: one of the article's many errors) by the English power structure. Let’s get rid of that article. There are excellent, uncontroversial reasons for doing so. And there’s also the frisson of prodding a prod. Third, notability. As for Keith A., I find it notable that he married and then had only three children. One or more of the participating editors may have had acknowledged children out of wedlock, and others may have so many as to make the local pastor look askance. Marriage and a manageable number of legitimate children. That was ho-hum in the 1950s. Surely worth a headline today in News of the World. But most of all, I put great store by what my eyes tell me: he is notable enough to be targeted by targeters who have a long history of targeting.

Keep the article:

1. The move to delete Keith is based both on his rank and and on the rank prejudice of the would-be censor(s). 2. The article, although brief, appears accurate. A special place in the Wikipedia pantheon. 3. There are bigger fish to fry.
For the conspiracy theorists among us. This is my first contribution to the Wiki process under any name. I do not know Keith. But I am an American, and we don’t stand too much on ceremony. At the same time, this country has a long agricultural tradition. Tunnah, I can smell fertilizer an ocean away. You seem to be producing way more than your share.Eamon76 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, This is the first ever post from this editor, highly suspicious - from here there are a number of !keep votes from people without basing them on wiki policy - there is possibly signs of "off wiki" canvassing. --Vintagekits 10:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope that the word 'prod' used here by Nuttah (or indeed Tunnah) is Wikipedian for 'proposed delete' rather than Glaswegian for Protestant (see Prod). -- roundhouse 09:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Let go through the article rationally to see if he is notable.
  1. The son of Sir Hugh Arbuthnot, 7th Baronet by his first wife Elizabeth Kathleen (d.1972) daughter of Squadron Leader George Algernon Williams, was educated at Wellington College and Edinburgh University, where he received a Bachelor of Science. (not notable)
  2. His brother is David Arbuthnot, racecourse trainer. On 3 July 1983 he succeeded to his father's baronetcy. (not notable)
  3. Arbuthnot has married twice: (1) May 22, 1982, to Anne Rosemary, younger daughter of Brigadier Peter Moore (divorced 1997); (2) February 14, 2003, Alison Jane Warner. (not notable)
  4. He has issue by his first wife, Robert Hugh Peter Arbuthnot (b. 2 March 1986), Patrick William Martin Arbuthnot (b. 13 July 1987), Alice Elizabeth Mary Arbuthnot (b. 22 March 1990) (not notable)

Seems pretty straight forward.--Vintagekits 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2[edit]

  • Weak keep, after some hesitation. This is a difficult issue: it is clear from the discussions about the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) guidelines that there is cuurently no consensus either way about whether hereditary nobility itself confers a presumption of notability.
    Some of the arguments in this AFD discussion appear to me to be concerning themselves with whether people approve or disapprove of the system of honours and nobility. That's irrelevant: I'm sure that all of us can pints to huge swathes of Wikipedia which cover things we dislike, disapprove of, or think are over-rated.
    Other parts of the discussion appear to be a re-run of the arguments which were (or should have been) made wrt to the rejected guideline. I think it would have been useful to have some guideline, whatever it said, to avoid re-inventing the wheel each time this issue arises; but there isn't one, and there's no point proceeding as if we are devising a guideline on either heredity or nobility. Without a special guideline we have to fall back to assessing this particular article under WP:NN and WP:BIO.
    It seems to me that the 8th Baronet here is a marginal case wrt to WP:NN: numerous entries in works on nobility and a Who's Who entry seem to me to go a long way to meeting WP:NN, but without unambiguously getting there. The discussion above includes well-reasoned arguments both for against this baronet meeting WP:NN.
    As to WP:BIO, I can't find anything there which suggests that this is a special case.
    However, I am persuaded by the arguments above by Charles01: "Whatever you think about the British honours system (... I myself find it significantly batty and, on a serious note, potentially corrupting) it is a part of public life in the UK that seems to interest plenty of folks in UK and anglophone places which used to be 'owned' by UK. These guys enjoy disproportionate influence".
    That's what clinches it for me: the fact of being the latest title-holder in a family which includes several notable people and apperas to somewhat influential. However, I don't think that all baronets pass that test: not all families of baronets have anyone notable, and plenty of baronetcies were sold by Maundy Gregory or awarded to otherwise obscure people who happened to find favour with the government of the day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provisionally per WP:BIO: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." At the very, very least, this baronet has received non-substantial coverage from a wide multitude of independent sources, making him notable. That shouldn't be debatable. In the wider view, to address the concerns of folks supporting the deletion of this article, I'd say I support keeping articles like this until policy is seriously considered and clarified with respect to baronets along predictable and rational lines. We shouldn't just toss articles out because there isn't any specific policy that positively establishes their notability right now. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment,A telephone book is a reliable secondary source - however it give no "depth of coverage" - The main issue here is "Depth of Coverage" - Who's who is a listing and provides no "Depth of Coverage". A Baron who obtains a seat in the House of Lords is notable - however although a Baronet might seem/sound very similar they are infact very different and the title of Baronet does have any really power and is an honorary title - unlike Duke, Earl and Baron. This persons article is solely based on his title and as he would not have an article otherwise and does not comply with WP:N or WP:BIO then he should not have an article.--Vintagekits 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There are some very useful and helpful comments above which in my view shouldf be gathered together by the closing administrator and preserved for posterity in order to avoid future arguments of this kind. I hope that may be possible. I think many of the arguments are also relevant to other categories, such as Lord Mayors, Lord Provosts and Provosts, British and American ambassadors (to wherever) - but somehow I personally wouldn't extend that to all Gambian ambassadors, all Knights and Dames Grand Cross, probably all knights and dames, all Lords Lieutenant and Deputy Lieutenants and all High Sheriffs, Generals, Admirals, Air Marshalls and Air Vice Marshalls and recipients of the GC. Provided some wikieditor has gone to the trouble to write an article for them. It is ridiculous that somebody like Jackiey Budden has an article while folk who have in their time been recognised by or leaders in the society find their articles susceptible to questionning on grounds of insufficient notability. - Kittybrewster 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who's Who seems a sufficient citation. It would help if some activities could be provided for the baronet, other than birth, marriages and procreation. -- roundhouse 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Who's Who is not a reliable source as pre WP:RS each of the sections are self written and not checked by an editor - this section is from the Who's Who (UK) article and speaks volumes! -

"Who's Who has been criticised for being too old-fashioned. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people, such as some leading footballers, are not. Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source, because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. This has resulted in notable biographical omissions; for example, the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry. Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his." --Vintagekits 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I meant that inclusion in WW is sufficient indication of notability. -- roundhouse 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It is patently not - as stated above, I went and looked at a copy of Who's Who 2007 and Debretts just to see what level of depth it goes into on people. Firstly Debrett's - this is 1,797 pages - with approximately 13 entries per page and the Sir Keith Arbutnott entry does not state anything notable about him only when he was born and the names of his family members.
Who's Who - this is pretty much the same book as far as I can see just with even more people, the UK edition alone is 2,529 pages long this year and it has on average 16 people listings or referral's per page - you do the math on the amount of people in it then. Each page is split into two columns with 100 lines per column so that 200 lines per page (over half a million lines in the book). The entry for this person is 6 lines long in one column - that includes a line for his name and address of where they live - the other four lines include where he went to school and the names of his family members inc. ex. wife. In fact the article is almost word for word what is the article except it has no crest shown and it uses abbreviations for much of the textile. There is no mention of anything notable that he achieved except that he went to university. Both entries in both books are identical as far as I can see - are they connected in some way or compiled in the same way?
Anyway in both the is no depth of coverage and there is also no assertion of notability.---Vintagekits 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I meant that inclusion in WW is sufficient indication of notability. -- roundhouse 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I know, you said that but its not especially as each of the 40,000 entrant fills out their own questionaire and effectively writes their own entry - there is no depth of coverage and in this case no claim of notability within the entry and therefore an entry in a book of listing is not enough for pass WP:N - why dont we just have an articles on everyone in the phonebook!--Vintagekits 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let us agree to differ on this matter. I wonder how many articles there are in Wikipedia on living British people. Rather more than 40,000 perhaps. -- roundhouse 14:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree to disagree on what? Are you saying that there is a depth of covering in Who's who? Are you saying that all 40,000 people in the Who's who listing get automatic notability on wiki, if so please show me where it states that in Wilipolicy? we have a lot more than 40,000 Bios - and they must all comply with WP:N, WP:BIO/WP:BLP or they should be deleted.--Vintagekits 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Enough. -- roundhouse 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Enough what? enough you cant rationalise your comments or enough you dont want to rationalise your comments, to pass someones qwuery of your comments off by just say I have had enough of disucssing with you seriously weakens your arguement. Please note this is note a vote as such it is a discussion and the decision will be based on rational, reasoned and well constructed arguement. regards--Vintagekits 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It seems to me that the (presumably unconcious) atavistic tribalism in which many of the contributions here are marinated is a much more fascinating, and also a much more serious subject than the issue of whether one fellow's favourite baronet is more or less deserving of an article than another fellow's favourite singer. Many wiki readers have not grown up in the heroic traditions of either Irish Republicanism or of British Imperialism, and would be thoroughly baffled by the passions stirred here. You thought Irish Republicanism and British Imperialism were off topic for this discussion? Take another look. There are plenty of honourable traditions that have from time to time been rendered scurrilous by the atrocities perpetrated in their names. Time may lead to more balance. But how many centuries will pass before an objective viewpoint is widely accepted concerning the crusading movements formally launched outside Clermont in 1095? Wikipedia is about knowledge. Both the honourable bits and the scurrilous bits deserve to be known: you can agree on that even before you will agree over which are which . If the more animated of the protagonists participating here think they will convert each other to one another's cause, then I think that they are doing whatever it is they are doing into the wind. And they must surely know it already. Wiki is trying to build knowledge: where it succeeds in that, it is to be commended. Excluding articles on 'people we don't like' (whether from personal knowledge or simply because we are riled by the curious names by which they wish to be known) reduces the overall bank of knowledge available and thereby renders more suspect that knowledge which remains uncensored. You will not convert your most committed opponents to your cause, least of all by haranguing them and seeking to exclude articles on matters that interest them. But you might at least enhance your own case to the unpersuaded by devoting your undoubted talents to maximising the information (information = facts) available on the causes about which you feel most positively. I guess that is what underlies my own instinct (?prejudice) in favour of retaining and improving articles about ... almost anything that anyone has bothered to write about in cases of stated doubt. So yes, my ‘keep’ vote is to be construed as a vote for knowledge and not as a vote for the British Empire, a subject on which my further views are mercifully out of scope.

There also seems to be a move afoot to encourage selective quoting of statements of wiki policy in support of one's viewpoint in this discussion. I forgot every wiki-policy I ever read so just I took another look. Here are a few quotable bits I found I agreed with after thirty seconds of clicking:

“Articles that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion.”

“…but ...in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.”

“Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.”

I had wondered, as these discussions unfolded, whether I was indeed guilty of having misconstrued the wiki mind-set. It may be so: I certainly don't expect to acquire an intimate knowledge of all the wiki policies any time soon. But it does (still) seem to me that the wiki mind-set prefers wider and deeper knowledge over opinion and censorship. When in doubt, please share the facts with the rest of us and let the facts build your case, especially where you find the facts offensive: you may gather more converts than you'd expected. As for Sir Keith Arbuthnot, I still wish that someone somewhere would find something more interesting to write about him.

For better or worse, I fear I may have alienated anyone else who feels strongly enough about matters thrown up by this article to have participated in the discussion about it. But in the event that you're still there, thank you for reading this.Charles01 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is not an issue of POV or of keeping knowledge away from people (censorship if you wish) this is an issue of notability. You stated in your keep !vote "The guy must have done something interesting since leaving uni" or else he wouldnt be in Who's who. There are a few things are wrong with that 1. That is not a strong reason to keep and it not based on wiki policy 2. he hasnt done anything noteworthy since uni (or at least nothing is stated about this is the article) 3. Who's who automatically gives a listing to Peers and Baronets if they reutrn their questionaire, so its not on merit and Wiki does not apply the same critieria 4. Wiki is not a crystal ball, we cannot assume that he must have done something or will do something or note if there is no proof.--Vintagekits 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, that is based on wikipedia policy: WP:N states that any subject that's discussed by multiple independent reliable sources is notable. Who's Who and Debretts are independent reliable sources. It doesn't matter, as far as Wikipedia's policy is concerned, what policy they use to determine notability: the policy we use is to note that they have determined that this person is notable. JulesH 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Neither Who's Who or Debretts are independent reliable sources as the entires are written by the people themselves - additonally there much be a depth of coverage, there isnt and additional it does not make any asertion to notability as per WP:N or WP:BIO--Vintagekits 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is a vanity page and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The author has not shown any notability whatsoever about the subject of the article.
  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TamB (talk • contribs).
  • 8th edit by this user. Tyrenius 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note per AfD Wikiquette — The accusation VANITY should be avoided [64], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. However, if you think it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, surely you should be advocating "delete", rather than "merge", which keeps the content. Tyrenius 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually I can assure you this is not a vanity page. I know him and (1) he is not marginally vain and (2) he is intensely private. - Kittybrewster 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary to this point
Arguments in favour of keep - 22
Arguments in favour of keep or redirect- 1
Arguments in favour of redirect/merge - 5 (+1 anon)
Arguments in favour of delete - 3
- Kittybrewster 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a discussion not a vote - you have been involved in "lock step" voting and canvassing before so any AfD that you are involved in needs to be treated with a lot of caution.--Vintagekits 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am indeed - with you it seems. You always argue against my perspective. Stop shadowing me, chum. - Kittybrewster 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3[edit]

  • Keep. As many people have pointed out, the baronetage is a part of British society, and a topic people might be interested in, therefore it makes sense to have a comprehensive reference to it available in Wikipedia. There is already a lot more content and more references than in many articles on supposedly more "notable" people. JRawle (Talk) 16:15, 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 speedy deleted by Rlevse[65]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isbran[edit]

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

This (TV show? Movie? Webcast? Book?) has zero sources and does not actually exist. Proposed deletion contested by IP. And please don't suggest BJAODN because it's really not that funny. ... discospinster talk 16:07, 7 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. John254 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caesium perchlorate[edit]

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

Contested prod, no opinion. The article has been sitting the the notability category for over 8 months and I would like to see if this 2 line article is notable. Diez2 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm sure that this compound has been the subject of a number of academic papers. It is only a matter of time before it gets expanded. No harm in leaving this as a stub. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete... I could only find the following references:

M. Senegaonik and S. Paljk. Fallout Analysis of Atmospheric Water Precipitations. Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Volume 232, Number 6 / November, 1967. pp 409-426. ISBN 0937-0633 - (Mentioned in one sentence describing how its isolation is avoided in their method)
US Patent No. 4491529 - (Used as one of the nucleating agents)
Even when searching for "CsClO4", only 170 Google hits were returned, and I could find no non-trivial mentions of this compound. Sancho (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Chemical Abstracts turns up 414 scientific articles for caesium perchlorate. If you want to determine the notability of a chemical compound, use a chemical database to search for it, not Google. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good point. I didn't know about this database. We should make a page that directs editors where likely sources for creating an article would be found for non-standard topics, like chemicals, or ... I don't know what else, but I'm sure there are other topics that would appear non-notable through a simple Google search, but in fact have loads of information available if searched for correctly. Sancho (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Edgar181 (note: the {{importance}} tag states "This article lacks information on the notability (importance) of the subject matter.", hence has the assumption the article is notable, but does not state why (hence, such articles do not need to be deleted, they lack a very important part of information). If its notability was questionable, it would use {{notability}}. The reason they are both in the notability category, is that articles which do not state notability/importance may indeed be not-notable. The importance tag has now been removed, hence the articles do now not state anymore that they do not state importance. Hence, they will remain unnoticed for their lack of importance, and unknowing readers will now not understand why this article is here (but at least they do not get prodded or AfD'd). I am sorry for my cynical tone, but I have been contesting a number of these prods/AfD's/retaggings/detaggings, where I do not understand why this seems to be the solution to clearing a backlog; see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability#Importance per project). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the importance tag is indeed worded wrong (because it is being used to imply that there is a notability problem), but that argument is really irrevelent to this AfD. Diez2 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

  • Keep for now - from the above searches, appears to be salvageable. Addhoc 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It just being short does not imply that it must be deleted. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Just ask a chemist. Its better known as "Cesium Perchlorate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The spelling may depend on the country; however, "caesium" is the IUPAC-recommended spelling. Itub 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a number of similar inorganic compounds were listed on March 7 for proposed deletion, all by the same editor; but I see that the prod tag has now been removed from all of them, and a comment about notability made. DGG 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the article a bit to show that it can grow beyond two lines. It will never be extremely long, but there are certainly still more things to be said about this compound. --Itub 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very nice. Thank you! That is the work that I should have done before deciding to vote delete. You are an example to all hasty AfD contributors. Sancho (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 11 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 copyvio. —Cryptic 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. No third-party sources, for all the external links; and that the logo is licensed as pd-self is especially troubling. Disputed prod. —Cryptic 16:29, 7 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) 2007-03-11 09:34Z

List of things sharing names with Finnish presidents[edit]

List of things sharing names with Finnish presidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't see how\why anybody would use this list Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; excessively trivial. ObtuseAngle 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, aritrary trivia. Nuttah68 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. –mysid☎ 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is good enough for BJAODN. I've written much better BJAODN material. Davidicke 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's articles like these that give lists a bad name. 23skidoo 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just about the stupidest article ever. Jolb 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, and the entries don't even match the wonderfully unusual title! SkierRMH 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list of coincidences. It's not Wikipedia's best interest to list coincidences, is it? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, maybe we are thinking this is just such a crazy bad idea because it is all to do with finish names? Perhaps should be moved to the finish wikipedia? Don't really know, it does look like to me as if it ought to be deleted. But I'm just wondering what impact are generally english-centric views are having upon us with this debate. I'll also note that the nominator's "reasons" given for deletion are rather bad, "I don't see how\why anybody would use this list". Either way, the end result will probably be what it should. However I am trying to stress that we should take extra care in this case, which I have failed to notice happen so far. Mathmo Talk 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am Finnish myself, and I doubt this would fit in the Finnish Wikipedia, either – it was obviously started as a joke.–mysid☎ 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, well the start of some relevant finish "expertise".... anyway, my point is that there have been extremely weak arguments (or even non-arguments) put forward. Though in the end it will get deleted, because there are even weaker arguments supporting it (or rather, none at all). Which I guess is in the end, "the right thing". Mathmo Talk 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculously trivial and unencyclopaedic Jules 09:49, 8 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. Listcruft? Probably not. Consensus is overwhelmingly saying to keep, though. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people born at sea[edit]

List of people born at sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced listcruft Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and arbitrary. Nuttah68 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added some references. –mysid☎ 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this is sourced and expanded, it could be a worthwhile, interesting and encyclopedic article (and sources have now been added). This is not "cruft" (which is one of the worst deletion reasons ever) - nor is it arbitrary. It lists notable people who were born at sea (a fairly rare occurrence, surely) which has all sorts of legal and political ramifications. Hmmm, looks like we need an article on Birth at sea as well... --Canley 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable, "cruft" is just a derisive term, not a valid reason for deletion. This is no more arbitrary than every country list and category for births. The term "cruft" should be banned from discussions, it has no valid context. I would like to see List of people who died at sea --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list was created as a result of deleting the category. Being born at sea is notable but not defining hence a list is appropriate. Presumably the sourcing for the currently listed people can be found in the articles for the people. If not, then remove the person from the list. Otto4711 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, where a person was born is notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments at WP:CFD when the equivalent category was deleted - that is, not appropriate as a category, but definitely appropriate as a list. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Don't ever remove referenced material from WP, it's what we need more of, not less. - Peregrine Fisher
  • Keep per all the reasons given so far, plus with everything sourced now, the orginal nomination reasons really don't look applicable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Predominantly referenced, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:03, 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 speedily deleted under speedy deletion criterion G1. – riana_dzasta 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heelclick[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is bordering on nonsense, and seems to be a term used by pupils at a certain school Lurker oi! 17:39, 7 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. Carabinieri 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sankaran[edit]

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

Seems like an advertisement. Makes vague claims of notability, but they come down to what I believe are self-published books and having his own medical practice. Unless there's more evidence of notability than the article's vague assertions, I don't think he's really notable. Adam Cuerden talk 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, absolutely no neutral non-trivial second party sources shown. One of the books mentioned does not mention Sankaran in any meaningful context. No opinion about the other references AlfPhotoman 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep In the field of homeopathy, Sankaran is one of the most widely-quoted and respected living homeopaths in the world (probably second only to Vithoulkas who is much older) and his research is considered ground-breaking, so I'm stunned that the article is proposed for deletion. He appears at sold-out lectures around the world. His software is widely used by homeopaths. His books are prominently featured at homeopathic suppliers. If we're going to have ANY articles about homeopathic practitioners Sankaran should be there. This AFD has been proposed by someone who obviously has zero knowledge or interest in this field. Here's an accurate bio [66]. I also note that the article doesn't mention the dozens of articles which Sankaran has published in homeopathic journals. An incomplete list is found here [67] Radar, probably the largest and most professional homeopathic software program, relies heavily on Sankaran's work [68]. --Lee Hunter 15:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very notable homeopath.Bakaman 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Lee Hunter. Mereda 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search indicates that he is notable. The article could do with some good references, though. utcursch | talk 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Most references are vanity publications and publicity links. Notability is not based on number of links. Adding to wikipedia would only help in establishing this kind of notability. Shyamal 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a keep had the subject not been aliveShyamal 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of self-published books is a complete red-herring. His books are widely distributed and available anywhere that professional literature on homeopathy is sold. They've also been incorporated into the main commercial homeopathic databases and they've been reviewed and discussed in journals in his field. I don't understand why you think being dead makes one a better candidate for notability. I've done some cleanup of this article and added links to more journal reviews. --Lee Hunter 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note I've just discovered that the link to "Sankaran's clinic" that has been in the article since last August was inserted by someone who fraudulently poses as Sankaran. Now I understand why people would think Sankaran is just some guy with a clinic in Bombay. I've replaced that link with the correct URL for Sankaran's site. --Lee Hunter 14:11, 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 redirect from typo. `'mikka 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhem scream[edit]

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

Page is a mispelling of an existing page, completely erroneous--Manwithbrisk 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the corridor, third door on the right. If one editor has been so convinced of a spelling error that they have actually created an article at a mis-spelled title, there will be others in the future. Uncle G 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Said page isn't worth a merger, it holds no information that the orginal doesn't, there is no new information to incorperate into the other article, would it not be simpilar to just removed the page altogether?--Manwithbrisk 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That just means that step #2 of the article merger process is a short one. It does not mean that AFD should be involved, and it does not require an administrator to use administrator tools. Uncle G 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wilhelm scream. Metrackle 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close and Redirect. Nuttah68 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect 8thstar 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close and Redirect. Davidicke 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close amd redirect 23skidoo 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and redirect --Canley 00:14, 8 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 unreferenced slang. IrishGuy talk 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shambag[edit]

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

The article purports to describe a stereotype, the name of which is a slang word. Searching for sources I find none at all that document any such type of person, let alone that can be used to confirm any of the contents of the article (such as the clothing preferences of this type of person). This article is documentation, being constructed firsthand directly by Wikipedia editors, for something for which there is no prior documentation outside of Wikipedia; it is original research, which is forbidden here. There's no evidence that this is even an alternative name for the stereotypes that are documented, such as chav, so no support even for a redirect. Uncle G 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is clearly described, and it has been thoroughly explained, what don't you understand. Mind you I could publish a book within the next few years on it should you really need references, to a locally used word that I've heard being used. New words have to begin somewhere eh? garethppls 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, with the requirement for published works such as newspaper articles or books to be used as sources for articles, I must say "Here is not that 'somewhere'". -- saberwyn 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, non notable neologism. 72 GHits, most of which are nothing to do with this term (most are non English words that happen to share the spelling). Nuttah68 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable original research. ArchStanton 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are people using this word on their myspace, bebo and other personal pages. You can find them if you simply google the word (i do not wan't to invade their privacy by linking to personal pages). You will note that all of the people are from the areas we pointed out that the word is in use.
  • the word is in use in the areas we point out and it is also spreading outwards from these areas. It is a legitamite word and i don't see your problems with it. It is well explained and i'm sure that people will find the page useful. Cahillgod 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:ATT every page must have references, all other arguments are secondary. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, I live in Celbridge and i noticed this word is up for deletion because it does not have sources. Well, the word is widely used in Kildare and Dublin and it has been published in local newspapers, the only problem is that these local papers don't have web pages so they cannot be referenced for this page. I would not be happy for this word and its definition to be deleted as it is a perfectly legitimate entry and is widely used in the areas pointed out. 194.106.155.33 11:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia does not depend entirely on web-based sources. Print sources are entirely acceptable. Please see WP:CITE for details on how to correctly cite them.—Carolfrog 03:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those saying the article should stay, you may want to read Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nuttah68 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • However it does more than a dictionary would do it tells you where it is commonly used and what is commonly associated with them. You wouldn't find that in any dictionary, no matter how big it is. I reckon that it is to full encyclopedic quality. - garethppls 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Gareth, the entry defines the word, what type of people it relates to, what they commonly wear, their attitudes and their type of lifestyle and this is much, much more than a simple dictionary definition. Cahillgod 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And all of that is original research, which is forbidden here. You have cited no sources where the attitudes and lifestyle of this purported stereotype are documented, and no such sources actually exist. Everything in Wikipedia must have been through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge, outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to write firsthand observations, new theories, and personal inferences; nor is it the place for first documenting what has not been already documented elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We haven't made this up as you seem to think, but i can see that nothing will change your mind anyway, so go ahead, delete it. I will weep quietly in the corner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cahillgod (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
            • Please look on the references section, a source where it is used has been added. garethppls 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • No one thinks that you made this word up. We do not need proof of its existence, what we do need are reliable sources that discuss its meaning. If you read WP:ATT then it would be clear. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your first cited article says nothing about shambags at all. Your second cited article at least says something about shambags, but is a post to a web discussion forum by an unidentifiable person, and thus is not information can be relied upon to have been through a process of fact checking and peer review, and is not from an author whose reputation for accuracy can be checked. Even if it were fact-checked and peer-reviewed and its author could be authenticated and were reliable, it supports none of the content of the article that you have written. Uncle G 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Weep quietly in the corner"? Are you serious? Do you think pity will move us? I assure you, we are pitiless. However, we are not immovable. There is something that could change our minds. We require sources. If you do indeed have verifiable sources in print form, please cite them. Even though we would not be able to immediately verify them with our own eyes because they are not web-based, we would have to assume good faith, and as we do have editors the world over, even local papers could be eventually checked out for accuracy. So while I would not encourage you to make stuff up, or misrepresent the content of the sources, I would definitely encourage you to cite (and accurately summarize the content of) whatever sources you have.—Carolfrog 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Your first cited article says nothing about shambags at all." - Not trying to be rude but are you blind? The first article defines what the word means.—garethppls 07:12, 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 -- Bubba hotep 11:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watsonville Vending[edit]

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

Company appears to be a very local vending machine distributor. No notability is asserted in the article, and notability sufficient to meet the requirements of the WP:CORP guideline is unlikely UnitedStatesian 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsourced article that makes no claims to the subject meeting WP:CORP. Nuttah68 20:08, 7 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.

Delete - crufty, synthesized nonsese, hyper-reliance on a single source with extensively padded endnotes. This article if chock full o' cruft and synthesis. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, except that everyone seems to agree cleanup is needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber_combat[edit]

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

Fails notability standards; poorly and improperly sourced. Jtrainor 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. Well, if not delete, then massively, massively cut of all the fancruft and original research. I'm having big trouble believing this to be adequately sourced: wikis are not reliable sources, and fanfiction hardly helps establish notability on the level of any sort of encyclopedic importance. A fan magazine, one fanbook and multiple fan websites hardly count as reliable sources, and certainly not the type of reliable souces that establish real-world notability. The article contains large amounts of original research, classic examples being:

    "The Jedi or Sith employ an attack in rare instances to use the cutting power of their lightsabers for an object at an unreachable location called the saber throw, or a throwing of his or her lightsaber. The lightsaber is thrown; usually the blade tip spins in a circular motion about the hilt; and the saber hits its target, usually to cut it. Skilled practitioners will use the Force to manipulate the trajectory of the lightsaber and then redirect it back to their hand."

    Love that. Not sourced at all. Incidentally, also horribly POV: "Trained in all forms by Dooku, a master of his own 4 arm style and advantage to almost invincibility; however, incapable of using the Force, one of his only weaknesses" - alright, so I don't care, but someone who did might find that large chunks of the article violate WP:NPOV.
  • Virtually no real-world notability is asserted at all as to why we should care about this form of fictional combat. As it stands, the article reads like a how-to guide - not permitted - and a purely indiscriminate collection of non-real-world information. Since we cannot keep...stuff...like this in a reputable encyclopedia for even one second, delete. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already stated. Unmaintainable, OR article topic. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On using Wikis as sources: from what I could read from my admittedly quick read-through, the external Wiki is listed as an external link, not a reference. Most of the references used in the article are from published sources. I'll leave it to individual editors to determine if the Star Wars Insider is a notable source or not, but it certainly isn't simply fanfic. That said, the article should probably be edited to conform to WP:NPOV. -- GJD 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional note See also the previous AfDs for this article, below. I expect there will be much repetition from both sides:
  • Delete as above, violates WP:OR and is little but a heap of supposition and personal opinion. RGTraynor 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Much of the article is sourced through statements from the novels, "making of" documentaries, and published magazines. Yes, the fancruft and OR needs to be removed. Yes, more sources, such as the various roleplaying books (from where some of this information is derived) need to be cited. Yes, "real world" information needs to be added and expanded on - I recall one of the SW "Making Of" films describing how lightsaber combat 'evolved' from the slow double-handed movements of Ep IV to the rapid speed of later films. But these are issues for continual editing and cleanup - not wiping the slate. -- saberwyn 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it!, or just Delete. The article is a good read, but goes far more into depth than should be on Wikipedia. Nothing indicates that these are notable. Indeed, even in most of the EU books I've read they're barely discussed and they aren't mentioned in the movies at all. Take it over to Wookiepedia, if it doesn't already possess a copy. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. OR and fancruft aside, this has virtually no bearing on any canon outside the RPG. The vast majority of SW canon (including all movies and videogames and almost all novels) offer no explanation of lightsaber training or feats of the Force because it's like magic, and magic is self-explanatory. It is only for the intricacies of pen and paper role-playing that applying rules to saber fighting and the Force becomes necessary, and therefore the significance of this information to the Star Wars phenomenon as a whole is strictly limited. GarrettTalk 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete due to massive OR, and failure to meet WP:ATT. However, I would be inclined to change my vote if the cruft was cut down, and better sources added. --Haemo 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. unencyclopedic fancruft `'mikka 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't dare attempt to read that giant mess of an article, but from what I see, it appears to be based largely on fanfiction. As far as I know, none of this fighting technique stuff is even mentioned in any of the movies. It actually looks like some nonsense Supershadow (Star Wars geeks will know who that is) made up. I would say, if it could be massively trimmed down, there could be something there worth keeping, but I don't know. Wavy G 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article is an institution. It needs citations added but thats about it. Also, continually renominating a page for deletion every 6 months is petty and a waste of everyone's time - its already been decided on 3 occasions to keep it, so perhaps you should just accept this. GordonRoss 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Surprised that now even deletionist is going after Star wars. What's next? some random star trek ships, even enterprise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: One can always hope, along with the articles based on every single variant model of battlesuit that ever got ten seconds of screen time on any ep of Mobile Suit Gundam, individual Pokemon articles and the like. RGTraynor 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per GordonRossJmpJckFlsh1968 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a huge amount wrong here. Yes, it's a little lacking in citations, but it does still have 35 citations, most of which are to reliable sources. Yes, there's heavy reliance placed on a single source -- Star Wars Insider #62 -- but I don't think that's a huge issue. Needs a bit of cleanup work, but that's all. JulesH 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Links to other wikis and to fansites and message board are not valid sources. Jtrainor 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Seems to me that you are confusing "External Links" with "References". While the "External Links" are indeed pointing to various wikis and message boards, and while SOME of the references are pointing to those, there are significant references to published works in the Reference section. While some may consider the Star Wars Insider to be a fan-based publication, the plain fact is that the article concerning lightsaber forms has been used and referenced now by computer games, role-playing games, and novels in the Star Wars genre, a number of which are in the "References" section of this article. Declaring the entire article as "original research" and void of valid sources is a fallacy at this point. Otherwise, you might as well ditch the articles on The Force (Star Wars) and Jedi and just about everything from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars, because most of the content of those articles came from similar sources. Like it or not, those sources are being used by authors writing for Star Wars games and Star Wars novels. This article needs cleaning, and perhaps some rewriting-because some of the article IS questionable-but not deletion. -- GJD 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up Making my stance official, as above. -- GJD 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at least remove the OR Stating the forms are based on Kendo/Iado is pure opinion. Jilsao 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment stating the forms are based on Kendo is pulled right out of the reliable sources that the article is based upon, and is also the "real world context" that makes this artice encyclopaedic. JulesH 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What reliable sources? I sure don't see any in this article. Jtrainor 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The reliable sources in the article are:
          • Star Wars: Attack of the Clones The Visual Dictionary (ISBN 0-7894-8588-5)
          • Star Wars Insider, #62
          • Episode I Video: Prime of the Jedi -(part of the "Making Episode I" series).
        • Some of the others may or may not be, as I haven't evaluated them, but all three of these sources are reliable. JulesH 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If they are sourced they need to be sited. The way they are stated reads like the article authors opinion. "This style is likely based on iaido." An encyclopidea isn't interested in what's "likely". If that is from a source it should read "according to source x, this style is based on iaido. Further, the kendo thing was just an example, state things as fact, and site them, it may all be fine for all I know, but it's not as it sits. Jilsao 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Fails notability. Macktheknifeau 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Appears to have quite a bit of source citation to me, and it's an important element of one of the biggest pop culture phenomons in the world. Redxiv 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How so? Lightsaber styles are mentioned in none of the movies and in almost none of the novels. Jtrainor 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge cleanup This is definitely an important article, with some good information. Keep it, but clean it up.--Tom 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Editors have already decided to keep it at least once, someone else here said three times. Like it or not, the lightsaber combat from Star Wars is becoming a part of popular culture, and this is by far the best article I have been able to find on it in the web. Yes, it needs cleanup, yes, it needs more source citations, but it is very relevant to the StarWars WikiProject. If we delete this, we may as well delete almost everything related to Star Wars that isn't an article on a book or movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep Keep in mind that *all* published Star Wars stuff is canon per Lucasfilms... they have some odd tiered system. Lucas himself > films > books/tv shows > games > magazines > comics (or similar order), where all is canon, but anything contradictory higher in the chain supercedes anything else--so hence, no continuity breaks, and all valid in that sense to include in Wikipedia as "not something made up"[69]. Star Wars Insider is an OK source, it's official. Only needs some sourcing, but can be sourced to game books, RPGs, mags, starwars.com, video games, etc. We use those sources of that nature for all sorts of stuff so it's fine here. Just needs some clean up/tightening, and why keep going after it to delete? WP:NOT a paper dictionary, so this is a content matter, not a policy violation as demonstrated by past AfDs. Please close as Keep, and just tag for clean up--the sources exist, are known to exist, and exist in abundance. It's the single biggest most popular fictional franchise... ever. Keep. - Denny 19:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment George Lucas's opinions on what is canon and what is not is irrelevant to policy, as is how popular Star Wars is. The article is a massive pile of unsourced OR crap about a non-noteable subset of Star Wars. Jtrainor 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get hostile or bellegierent, and try to AGF on my statement. I said it's all sourceable, and isn't material made up by people (and yes I know what OR means). It comes from the games (numerous books and video games, fine as sources), the comic books (fine as sources), the novels (40+), etc. It's a content matter, not a policy vio of an article. please argue based on policy with examples. - Denny 08:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's getting hostile? You completely sidestepped all the problems with the article with vague proclamations about sources, while still not addressing the notability argument. This article pretty clearly fails the noteability guidelines. Jtrainor 06:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Jtrainor 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring something to be non-notable doesn't make it so... Lightsaber combat is a central feature of six of the most popular films of all times. It is central to DOZENS of novels, which also do touch on the forms and so forth mentioned here, and I saw last night that Lucasfilms is actually coming out specifically with a book about the Force in their fictional world this year now, which will additionally cover all this material. I'm not sure I understand your claim of it not being notable. have you watched any star wars film, or read any of the novels? This is all sourceable--I'm simply saying that the article expanded without people actually adding footnotes as often as needed, and more people are saying the exact same thing basically. Whether it's fictional or silly is illerevant. A film series of six movies alone where each film makes roughly $1,000,000,000> from release through to DVD, about a family whose people basically do "Lightsaber combat" makes "lightsaber combat" notable, before you even get into all the monster volumes of side material...
I challenge you politely to explain how it's not notable, as your non-notability push is perplexing and baffling... thanks... - Denny 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Care to explain exactly how this meets the standards under WP:Notability? Jtrainor 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Very comprehensive, 35 citations, nice images, Wow. Smee 09:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete flush it. --Fredrick day 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that further demonstration of notability, if you want to see just how often the 'forms' and what not are mentioned by names, go look at the links at the bottom of the article that go back to the star wars wikia site. If no one else beats me to it (going offline for a very long time now) I will work to implement those as sources--the specific novels each appears in. keep in mind that many of the forms, etc., are mentioned in multiple novels or play roles to some degree in many... so, further solid demonstrations of notability. - Denny 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As an additional aside...a more appropriate check for notability guidelines on this subject is WP:FICT. Somehow, I don't think anyone will argue that Star Wars is a work of fiction. As to whether or not lightsaber combat is considered a major or minor concept within Star Wars...well, the vast majority of SW fiction certainly contains instances of lightsaber combat, particularly the prequel era works and the post-movie works. Within the genre, I would say that it has distinctly established notability. The OR argument has been debunked so many times in this AfD that I suspect people are simply not even trying to look at the references section of the article. Ironically, I feel Moreschi has the best take on this-chunks of the article do need cleaned up, because Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide; the article on Karate doesn't go into detail on how to perform its art; neither should this article try to do the same. Those segments of the article should be removed. -- GJD 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Other wikis are not valid sources. Jtrainor 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman/red herring, I didn't say the wikis were RS. I said they had listings of all the RS, down to detailed breakdowns of which book featured which thing (fighting form, etc.) detailed in THIS article. The sources exist in abundance, and anything officially owned by Lucasfilms is a fine RS for the Star Wars articles. The ONLY question is one of notability, but being as the lightsaber combat features heavily in six of the most successful films of all time, and a hit TV show (Clone Wars) plus other old (80s) animated shows, plus the forthcoming live-action Star Wars shows, plus 30-40+ novels... yeah, notable. But that is the ONLY question here. The rest is article clean up stuff. - Denny 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret. Clearly a lot of work went into this and it deserves to be preserved on a fansite somewhere, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. To the vast majority of people, these fancruft details are not notable. — MediaMangler 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It has WP:CRUFT issues, and may need a couple of cleanup tags, but that's no reason to delete the article as such. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's still like this? Well, I repeat my comment from June of last year, in a previoous deletion nomination: "This is utterly terrifying in its degree of absorption in its subject, and I find myself hoping that somehow a compromise can be found in which I, when reading it, am reminded at least every few pages that the whole thing's fictional. Cruft-smanship doesnt even begin to cover this." Hornplease 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cleanup points made above. — JeremyTalk 05:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - absolutely is complete and total cruft according to WP:CRUFT. However, a heck of a lot of work has gone into this article, it is notable from the standpoint of the extended Star Wars universe, and it passes the Pokemon test. If this gets deleted, what other cruft needs to be deleted? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fast as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The noteability of this article is irrelevant with regards to Pokemon or other articles. Just because one thing is noteable, it does not neccesarily follow that something else is.
  • Keep AS has been stated previously, a very comprehensive overview of the subject. This should be on the front page. Cloveoil 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that much of the content of this article appears to be culled from inappropriate sources and hence this article has sigificant WP:OR problems. However, I also agree that enough sources and content would be left if the unreliable material were culled out to make topic notable and justifying a reasonable article. AfD covers whether the topic itself is encyclopedic, not whether the current article complies with standards in all respects. The topic supports an encyclopedic article, and that is enough. --Shirahadasha 05:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's already been mentioned that this article has issues with WP:CRUFT, WP:OR as well - although apparently that's debatable. Also, it really needs some sense of objectivity instituted into it's detail heavy subsections. But... it is a notable element of the Star Wars franchise, and there are a lot of tenacious people who've put a lot of work into the article to make it W-acceptable. So I vote keep. Black-Velvet 06:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like MediaMangler, with regret. A lot of effort has clearly gone into this article and it's definitely sourced but it just simply isn't notable. It's pure Fancruft (and I say this as a big Sci-Fi fan). Wookieepedia is the place for it. Perhaps it should simply be cut and pasted there (they could use the content). Coricus 06:51, 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) 2007-03-11 09:35Z

Drewn[edit]

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

Contested prod with the reason 'Not notable"? Are you kidding me? What kind of relative reason is that?'. Unsourced article on a non notable drinking made up one day by the author. Nuttah68 19:50, 7 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 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica London[edit]

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

Rewrite (I assume) of deleted article; notability is still unclear FisherQueen (Talk) 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The company is notable enough to be a sponsored topside Google link and has over six hundred thousand G-hits. RGTraynor 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I didn't think that G-hits could establish notability. Where are the multiple sources of which the company is the subject? UnitedStatesian 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see non-trivial second party sources in this article. If that should change during the course of this AfD so will my vote AlfPhotoman 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and redirect to Redcats Group PPR (company), a huge mail-order conglomerate. --Selket Talk 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    although, several other redcats subdivisions do have their own pages. --Selket Talk 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notice that on the talk page, creator acknowledges that she is an employee who has been assigned to create this article, a clear conflict of interest. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to accept the creator's rationale that she has followed the spirit of the guideline. Also, a conflict of interest is not a good definitive reason to delete; just a good reason for cleanup, if needed.—Carolfrog 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's up the the article to establish notability, delete. --fvw* 22:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a sponsored topside Google link merely means the company has enough money to pay for the ad. That said, I think notability is established well enough, although we should keep an eye out for more sources. —Carolfrog 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For better or for worse, the essence of our attribution policy is a requirement that independent, reliable sources describe the topic in enough detail to support an encyclopedic article. Notability is a guideline, but attribution is a policy, and policy trumps guideline where, as here, the two arguably conflict. It doesn't matter if a topic is notable enough to get a zillion Google hits if we're not able to verify any information about it. And if all we have to rely on is a company's own web site amd materials, we can't really say much that's reliable about it. We can't possibly comply with WP:NPOV as there's one and only one view on it available to us. If there's a problem, we'll never know about it. The requirement of independent coverage is built in to our core policies for a reason. This article lacks evidence of it. Delete. --Shirahadasha 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Shirahadasha. Black-Velvet 06:14, 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) 2007-03-11 09:36Z

Socialbutter[edit]

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

With an Alexa rating of only 914,367 I don't feel Socialbutter is ready to be a Wikipedia article. I do want to point out that I strongly support the gay rights community and hope that one day this site is popular enough, but for now it doesn't seem to be notable. PoeticX 20:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article itself says the site was only started March 5th, two days ago. That's not long enough to establish notability or to have independent, reliable sources on it. Perhaps in the future, if those things happen, the page can be recreated. --Miskwito 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. The only thing created on March 5th I want to see an article on is on the birth to the heir of a monarchy, or suchlike. RGTraynor 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. I'd be surprised if a website created two days ago and still in Beta could meet the requirements, but I will reconsider if sources are provided. Nuttah68 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dismas|(talk) 21:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I though the site got much more press then it actually did... I should obviously have some more background research. Sorry, guys. Bylandl 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable and spam. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 7 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) 2007-03-11 09:37Z

Divine Boards[edit]

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

Nn website, fails WP:WEB. Deprodded by author. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this forum is stronger than most advertised here at Wikipedia. I am not calling this advertising because it isn't. It's a legit article on a legit internet site. Now, if you delete this one, you would, in theory, have to get rid of the NSider article, GTF Outsider, and all of the other 'forums' out there. Since you perceptibaly won't do that, then this needs to stay.

I feel that this page is not advertising... It is a strong forum and has been around for a long time. If you feel that this is advertising, then why not take the other forums down as well? Just because they are bigger does not mean that they are not advertising also... Please consider keeping this page... --Divine Boards 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB, WP:VAIN: Few "strong" forums collapse, and few forums with an Alexa ranking of zero can be described as "strong." Article created today and represents the sole Wikipedia activity of the editor ... of course it's an advertisement; what else would this article about one of the many thousands of gaming fora be? (And yes, we're pretty proactive over deleting such articles.) Ravenswing 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per blatant advertisements and lack of notability. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete blatent failure of WP:WEB. Nuttah68 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Non-notable and in violation of WP:WEB and spam. Per agreement above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont know what "Alexa" is, but I dont need "Alexa" to tell me that we have a community that is on the internet... It is a piece of history that needs to be included in this encyclopedia.--Divine Boards 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added an achievement made by Divine Boards...--Divine Boards 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are not compelling argument for inclusion. Read the standards under WP:WEB. Also, I sense that you might have a WP:COI here. --Haemo 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alexa, FYI, is a site with software that tracks Web sites and ranks them according to their relative traffic; a number of us use it to gauge the relative popularity of a website. A ranking above #1000 is pretty darn good, much below #10,000 fairly insignificant, below #100,000 a blip at best. If you don't register at all, you've just not established any degree of importance. I'll tell you what, though; take your website to Britannica or Encarta and see if you can get them to include yours. If they sign off on it, it'll be good enough for us. Ravenswing 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB completely.

I will regester with alexa and Britannica/Encarta... Thanks...--66.140.211.156 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You said that, on the actual site for Divine Boards, the announcement that says the article is considered for deletion cannot be edited out of the article untill the situation is resolved. I think we both know the situation is now resolved after our impenetrable arguement with NSider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Divineboards.co.nr (talk • contribs).
Please add new comments to the bottom of the discussion, not the top. Thanks — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, didn't know how to sign my name. Anyway, we (the creator of this article and myself) are trying to save this article from deletion for reasons that aren't acceptable. Join Divineboards.co.nr 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)divineboards.co.nr[reply]
I dont think this is resolved yet... They seem to think it is not good enough. I will not give in, these guys forums have a right to be here.--204.184.141.253 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really doesn't. Wikipedia is a privately-owned encyclopedia, and articles must conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This article's backers have consistently refused to explain how it satisfies Wikipedia criteria. The only way to save it is to do so. Ravenswing 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are our reasons not acceptable? You've yet to provide any proof whatsoever that the site passes the notability criteria at WP:WEB. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divine Boards does meet the criteria... It has published works within it from various members that do not own the site... The forum is ranked higher than most forums on the invisionfree directory... I am not sure what more there is, but it seems good enough to me...--66.140.208.8 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood the meaning of 'published works' in WP:WEB - we don't mean things like posts on the forum, we mean things like newspaper articles and TV documentaries. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not misunderstand you... Divine posts updates on events relating (V-Games) and members post reviews. I agree that these are contained within posts, but it is just as affective... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.140.208.8 (talk • contribs).
We're talking about published works about Divine Boards, not works published by them. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I just posted one here... Just type in DIvine Boards here (Wikipedia) and you get the article...--66.140.208.8 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously not see the problem with that? --Haemo 05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a huge problem... You wont let Divine Boards be on Wikipedia...--66.140.208.8 06:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I will spell it out; a Wikipedia article cannot be sourced from itself. As such, this is not a source which constitutes a published work under the guidelines. --Haemo 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Boards did not post itself... I dont own it, I just posted it here...--66.140.208.8 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this conversation over? You haven't deleted the article, so it must meet the requirements to stay, right? Can we take the 'article for deletion' tag off of it now?Join Divineboards.co.nr 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD debates last up to five days. So far you haven't shown us anything that would suggest it meets the criteria at WP:WEB, so it's likely to be deleted by an administrator after then. Please do not remove the AfD tag from the article. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation seems over, yes, but possibly not in the way you would wish. As Matt correctly points out, you've completely failed to demonstrate how this board passes WP:WEB. You're running out of time to do so. Let me phrase this in a way that might resonate with you: this is like me asking you to be credited with winning a computer game without actually playing it, and figuring that if I'm persistent enough in asking I'll be handed the credit for victory, no monster-bashing or problem-solving required. Possibly you might want me to prove I can do what I claim I did before you give me props for doing so. Ravenswing 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir or Maam, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in discusion is now dumber for having listened to it, and may God have mercy on your soul...--66.140.208.8 05:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be wiser to try to understand what Ravenswing is trying to tell you than to resort to mockery for not being hip enough to your world. I can't find a single sentence in this article that does not appear to be original research, which is not allowed in articles on Wikipedia. If you can provide reliable, non-trivial, third party sources for all the statements in the article (and/or remove the ones you can't source), then we won't delete this article. If you can't do that, then we will delete the article.—Carolfrog 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Have you not seen Nsider? That forum is more of a trivial, non-reliable source than anything I know, yet you still have it here... Does that not violate your little rule?--66.140.208.8 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You may want to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In addition, you are perfectly free to nominate Nsider for deletion if you think it warrants such an action.—Carolfrog 07:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I have now done so. I guess we'll see what the fallout is on that, huh?—Carolfrog 08:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, who knows, but perhaps Mr. Anonymous there could consider a few facts: (a) Nsider is the official Nintendo board; (b) It carries an Alexa rank around 1,500, which is huge; (c) It has over twenty times more users than Divine Boards has posts, of which; (d) according to Divine Boards' personal "Domain" feature, around a full fifth of DB's posts come from only six users. Ravenswing 09:38, 11 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 having no content, beyond a copyvio of tangentially related statistics from [70]. After removing the copyvio, what is left is "Derrytresk is a place outside coalisland" and "This place is legendary,", which constitutes a csd a1. - Bobet 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrytresk[edit]

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

Non-notable place - just a group of houses near a Coalisland. Article is a vandal magnet, with most edits originating from a vandal IP (a local college) that appears to be creating random articles for experimentation

  • Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep precedent says locations are notable, precedent says this includes Irish townlands, this official government sitre confirms DerryTresk is a townland [71]]. AfD is not a way to deal with vandalism. Nuttah68 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable location. Entirely unreferenced and much of the content reads much like a joke. The primary contributor doesn't seem to have much going for him either. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the main thrust of my argument- whether the place exisys or not, the article is a farce. The place itself (I live near it) is literally a couple of fields and some houses.
  • Keep per Nuttah68, a govermentally-recognized community is inherently notable, even if its article is not good. ObtuseAngle 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep assuming gov'tal sources pan out. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can I also add that the article refers to govt. sources and not once names Derrytresk, but does name the nearby Washing Bay (which does exist and has a bus service - it also has a nice beach on Lough Neagh). More evidence this article is a hoax, I'm afraid Trenwith 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Real town. Towns, cities, villages are inherently notable regardless of size. An article that gets vandalized a lot is not a reason to delete it (I've lost track of how many vanadalism reverts I've done on Los Angeles). --Oakshade 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • there's a difference here- the LA article isn't garbage; you can find LA on a map; if you drove through LA, you would notice it; 'Los Angeles' is not a local name for a couple of fields. Derrytresk, on the other hand.... Trenwith 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - contents of this page appear to have nothing to do with Derrytresk, but with Washing Bay. Page has been oft-edited from one location- apparently as a joke. Contents are rubbish. Whether Derrytresk is real or not, this page has no place in its current form Blowmonkey 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Concur with Oakshade. However it must be made more relevant to its ownself not Washing Bay. JBEvans 17:59, 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 St. Elmo's Fire (film). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:39Z

Alec Newbary[edit]

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

A character from St. Elmo's Fire (film). The entire article consists of plot details from the movie involving the character. No outside references or real-world context for the character is provided, and as per the recommendations in WP:FICT. Article should be either redirected to St. Elmo's Fire (film) in the characters section or deleted. Note that the character section there does already have one paragraph descriptions of each major character, including this one. Will reconsider my recommendation if some independent published sources talking about this specific character can be provided to demonstrate that an encyclopedic treatment of the character requires its own subarticle. Dugwiki 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did do a first-glance web search to see if I could find such sources, but I only found a handful of URLS and nothing from a reliable publisher. Dugwiki 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can add some real world context. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete OR Redirect to the associated film. -- saberwyn 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to St. Elmo's Fire (film). If someone wants to create a good encyclopedic treatment of the character later, they can always do that. —Carolfrog 06:00, 11 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) 2007-03-11 09:40Z

Werner Schumann[edit]

Werner Schumann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Werner schumann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Wernerschumann.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Is he notable? Your thoughts please. Abstain Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 7 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) 2007-03-11 09:42Z

Boi (gender)[edit]

Boi (gender) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced, trivial, and deeply unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misspelling becomes neologism becomes unfortunate Avril Lavigne song becomes unfortunate, unreferenced, unencyclopedic article. --S0uj1r0 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the title, Boi is currently a disambiguation page so there needs to be some additianl word or phrase in the title of this article. "Gender" seems like a reasonable choice since it does relate to gender identity and presentation. If someone has a better suggestion, please offer it. Otto4711 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a rename to Boi (gender identity)? --Dennisthe2 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, that works. =^^= --Dennisthe2 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Otto4711. Use as a gender identity pre-dates the Lavigne song. / edgarde 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto and Edgarde --Alynna 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it needs some cleanup. Clear gender identity usage. bikeable (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Otto4711. Mathmo Talk 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Otto4711. —Cliffb 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fairly widely used term - even though fairly new. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto. Needs work and more refs though. Raystorm 11:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepp It needs more sources, but it has one. This will grow with time with some work. futurebird 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is proper word now, even if it is kinda dumb. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Otto. Makgraf 07:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs work, but that's no reason to delete. Kolindigo 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Boi. Continue to cleanup and add sources. But it's sourceable. —Carolfrog 06:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I reverted Kevin's change to the template. It would appear that the discussion took that drastic turn. —Carolfrog 06:16, 11 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IME process metallurgy and metal recycling[edit]

IME process metallurgy and metal recycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod with the reason 'Prod contested; Notable to me; Its in Germany! how can you think its Not notable?'. Article is on a non notable university faculty and course guide. Wikipedia is not a surrogate prospectus. Nuttah68 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NN, WP:BOOK, WP:COI (in part for the Germany comment). -Selket Talk 09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me as if the faculty is substantial and thus notable: it is over a cetnury old and engaged in research, not merely teaching. Since it is in Germany, lack of English refernefces to it may not be surprising. Peterkingiron 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of the content with RWTH Aachen. There is an unnecessary amount of detail here about what is, I believe, essentially a specialized program at the University. I think it would be perfect to briefly merge a brief section into RWTH article. I'd volunteer to do a merge, but I think the technical aspects and some of the concepts that were (perhaps) lost in translation are beyond me.--Kubigula (talk) 03:06, 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 merge to Sherwood, Arkansas. - Bobet 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Voice[edit]

Small county newspaper, doesn't meet notability requirements. Cat-five - talk 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable paper. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article on Sherwood, Arkansas and redirect. Information on communications media is a valuable addition to an article on a community. Fg2 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "In the news today, Old man Walker got into a shouting match with Farmer Jenkins at the barbershop over a game of checkers. In other news: don't forget, the county hoedown is tonight at 7:30 sharp; bring your sister." IOW, non-notable. Wavy G 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are local newspapers considered non-notable by default? Can someone direct me to a policy or guideline that even addresses local newspapers/media? Anyway, my feeling is Merge to Sherwood, Arkansas, per Fg2, unless someone can help me out with something that says local newspapers are inherently notable. —Carolfrog 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Fg2. There's only a little content here, so it's a perfect merge to the city article, which is also not very big.--Kubigula (talk) 22:18, 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. IrishGuy talk 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telewest[edit]

Telewest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Redirect Telewest should be deleted, as it is now Virgin Media. This page once deleted should redirect to Virgin Media as NTL: AND Virgin.net do. Please post you opinions. John John Owen14 (talk · contribs)
  • Legitimate case of Speedy redirect. Was once a listed London cable franchisee which was caught up in the dot.com bubble. The name will mean something to a lot of Londoners and shareholders. Why does it need to be deleted prior to establishing redirect? Ohconfucius 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is still historically relevant. We don't merge people's biographies to Heaven when they die. Melchoir 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not really the best example IMHO. The equivalent would be that we had two separate articles when someone changed their namePit-yacker 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't just change their name; it's complicated. Melchoir 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing their name is more accurate than saying that Telewest "died". AFAICT Telewest took over NTL, changed its name to NTL and then changed its name to Virgin Media. Perhaps on that basis this article should be at NTL? Pit-yacker 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have Ntl and Virgin.net been deleted

  • Keep No reason to delete this article, should be a redirect to Virgin Media at the very least. Catchpole 10:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: IMHO the argument for keeping the old articles is flawed. The article as currently stands has more in common with Virgin Media than Telewest as this article had previously changed to reflect the harmonisation of products with NTL that occured long before the rebrand. Secondly, as I have previously said Virgin Media IS NTL and Telewest operating under a different name. As technically Telewest took over NTL (and then renamed itself NTL), Telewest has more claim to be Virgin Media than NTL. My third concern about having separate articles is that of consistency. I maintain that duplication in Wikipedia is a very bad thing. Since editors generally only edit one article, articles very quickly diverge, and inconsistencies appear. With two separate articles there is no way to avoid inconsistencies as the history of Telewest is directly relevant to Virgin Media. The pre-merger "lowest common denominator" of consensus of having a link to Telewest#History in NTL's history section was frankly quite silly. Pit-yacker 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not silly, but a good practice: summary style. The Virgin Media article is huge; why shouldn't it have more detailed and authoritative accounts of elements of its history to point to? Melchoir 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having separate articles isnt silly. Having a {{main|Telewest#History}} in NTL is though. IMHO it makes for very poor flow with the article branching off into halfway through a separate article and then coming back for the rest of the section. If you want to break up the Virgin Media article, I would reccomend having whole sections eg an article History of Virgin Media. Pit-yacker 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Melchoir 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Telewest was a notable cable company. Keep it for historical reasons. Computerjoe's talk 17:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable company with a very notable position in the history of Telecommunications in the UK. Also I notice that the article on Compaq has not been deleted. Compaq is only a brand name now, nothing else. Compaq has been totally swallowed by HP so surely if Telewest is deleted it will set a precedent for Compaq to get the bullet as well and be merged into HP, which shouldn't happen because Compaq is a dead company with a unique history that needs keeping, just like Telewest. -X201 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Difference is, AFAICT the Compaq brand is still in use. Pit-yacker 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My point entirely. Shouldn't all the history be removed from it. Shouldn't the Compaq Article be the equivalent of "Was big, not now. Just a brand name" ? - X201 12:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is important in that it describes a company that used to exist. AEMoreira042281 06:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to a History of Virgin Media article Regan123 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is still a valid historical article about a significant and notable once-independent company, even if it is now merged into a larger entity. Otherwise, by the same logic, we would have to delete General Post Office, because it no longer exists and its business is carried on by other entities, British Steel, National Coal Board likewise, and so on into absurdity. -- The Anome 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This page should be redirected to Virgin Media then.
  • Strong Keep Telewest Limited remains on the register at Companies House and there are 48 other companies incorporating the name Telewest. The fact that Telewest is now a subsidiary of Virgin Media does not prevent it remaining notable. Prior to amalgamations with NTL and then Virgin Media, Telewest was certainly notiable. That amalgamation doe not affect notability. Alternatively, Merge with Virgin Media as a separate section in that article. Peterkingiron 23:08, 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) 2007-03-11 09:43Z

Johnny Boston[edit]

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

Incorrectly MfD'd by an IP user, moved to the correct place, which is here. Procedural nom, no vote. →EdGl 21:50, 7 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 Deleted by Irishguy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:43Z

The Glare of Day[edit]

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

no notability, all the info was added by one user and taken right out of the band's personal page Chevinki 21:50, 7 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) 2007-03-11 09:43Z

Avercromby[edit]

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

Apparently a hoax. Unable to find any trace of Mr. Freezy and the argonauts at the British Library (search for "freezy argonauts"). Was {{prod}}'d, removed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax, no ghits for "Mr.Freezy and the argonauts" either and only 7 English results for Avercromby. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The books exsistence is questioned by many, but 2 copies do exsist, 1 belonging to each of the writers. it has not yet been published." The book hasn't been published and is owned only by its authors, which makes this fictional location within the book non-notable. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete joke/vandalism article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional town in a book, of which only two copies exist? It doesn't get much more non-notable than that. Wavy G 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. JuJube 06:48, 8 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. The strength of argument from Bobet trumps the (small) numbers. No one refuted his argument. Herostratus 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justinlees Inn[edit]

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

Non-notable pub. -- RHaworth 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Speaking as a Yank, its age alone (139 years old) makes it notable. Also, it did receive some media coverage in 2002 for a suicide that happened in its bathroom. I've added an external link indicating such, but I'm sure a better one could be found.—Carolfrog 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speaking as a Brit, 139 years old does not make a pub notable - see Notable British public houses. -- RHaworth 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see an indication of notability. The age isn't relevant, since that doesn't make it one of the oldest pubs in the country, or otherwise add notability on itself. A suicide happening in the place doesn't confer notability to the establishment; the event might make news, but no one would remember the name of the place after seeing/hearing that news, because it's not relevant. A bridge might become famous as a suicide spot, but in this case, there's no indication that the selection of the place wasn't coincidental. - Bobet 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I agree with Bobet above, but I've also looked at the article history page. This article was created as a stub March 7 at 15:34, tagged non-notable by RHaworth 18 minutes later after 7 edits by the creator, and by 22:09 was brought to AfD by RHaworth. Why not give the creator a week to show notability? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending show of notability per AGTTH -- TedFrank 20:55, 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 non-notable product with no references. IrishGuy talk 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Banks Keyboard[edit]

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

Prod contested by an ip address with no reason given. Article on a keyboard that offers no claim to notability, no sources and as the product is still under development is very likely original research. Nuttah68 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Nuttah68 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As it is still under development, non-notable. I have no way of confirming the info in the article as the website given retrieved a "Cannot find server" error. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. I'd even not object to a speedy deletion on that ground. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:35, 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 keep. - Bobet 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of human consciousness and meta-power[edit]

Sociology of human consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Meta-power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Essentially these are academic papers rather than encyclopedia articles. Original research. -- RHaworth 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's also the problem that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or essays for that matter. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are encyclopedia articles, although in the style of an academic encyclopedia rather than Wikipedia. Spacepotato 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just wikified them, they look good to me. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They could use some more work but if they are academic papers then they are review articles which is pretty close to an encyclopedia article. Jvbishop 17:56, 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) 2007-03-11 09:44Z

Seth Greenstein[edit]

Seth Greenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Seth greenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This page is a hoax as player never existed and does not show up in any official list for players on the teams he is listed to play for. The prod has been removed a few times. Djsasso 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as complete hoax. Quick search for ""seth greenstein" +nhl -wikipedia" in Google turns up a document mentioning a lawyer for the Digital Media Association, and no hockey players by that name. Fails WP:A. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it helps when the hoax person's name isn't just a random actor's name combined with a common suffix for Jewish names. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Neither hockeydb nor the Hockey Hall of Fame have heard of this individual, and both list every player to have played in the NHL. Resolute 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I stand by my convictions for originally tagging the article as a hoax. No such record of a player exists in an NHL player database. Flibirigit 04:34, 9 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 speedily deleted. Vanity created by serial disruption account, now indef-blocked. Grandmasterka 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shomari[edit]

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

Looks like a vanity page to me - the claim about being the winner of American Idol is also patently false. Kurt Shaped Box 22:48, 7 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: Speedily deleted and redirected to L0phtCrack - incoherent, spam. - Mike Rosoft 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC 5[edit]

LC 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a hoax. There certainly are not any sources. Cfrydj 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per "See Also" in that page, suggest it just be redirected to L0phtCrack and left at that. 68.39.174.238 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Each sentence may make sense by itself, but taken as a whole, the article is self contradictory, incoherent, and utter rubbish. A choice paragraph: "LC5 works because its employees, for the most part do not know that they are working for it. Most customers also do not know that they are being lifted into popularity." --Selket Talk 09:21, 8 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 non-notable person. IrishGuy talk 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David_Beaudoin[edit]

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

Not notable. Same as a page on fr.wikipedia.org for the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveB1980 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Malformed nomination completed for the editor above. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i think this is a good article, and should NOT be deleted, it is useful information on a rising canadian celeb. user:andydave 12:52, March 8, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, if it should not be deleted someone should add some non-trivial second party sources AlfPhotoman 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this a joke. Somebody probably made a page about themself.--Sefringle 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This boy appears to have acted in 3 music videos. This fails Wikipedia:Attribution, unless someone can find some reliable sources on him. There's not even an imdb page on him. --Xyzzyplugh 04:00, 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 keep. - Bobet 12:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gray tuesday[edit]

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

The name of this event was made up by the creator of the article and does not appear in any official form anywhere else. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep According to this, its not made up. It does need to be sourced though as the current external link seems to almost contradict the subject. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it's a name the Economist used[72] (spelled Grey Tuesday, which we would have to disambiguate in any case) though not many others. This seems like a pretty big sell-off though something short of a crash/panic -- there are plenty of articles on the sell-off. Naming it Grey Tuesday is contingent on that name being widely used, though, and I don't see that yet. Are we certain there is no other article on the sell-off? -- Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The London Stock Exchange calls it Grey Tuesday, as well as some other sources. Still, the article needs to be expanded as it currently lists Deng Xiaoping's death as the sole cause. –Pomte 23:39, 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 deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 09:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacuna, LLC[edit]

Lacuna, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promo of nonnotable. A miniscule blip on 'net `'mikka 23:35, 7 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) 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Nemesis[edit]

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

Non-notable web movie. The article by what appears to be a single-purpose account reads like advertising or promotion, largely consisting of unsubstantiated unverified claims.

I am also nominating the following related page, which is essentially the same article:

The Enchanted Nemesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Agent 86 23:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete This is no joke. It is not ludicrous to compare a feature length movie to another. The analogy is that both movies are sequels that are better than originals. (Based on opinion and is inherently a subjective statement that holds validity.) The movie's notability is a mute point because the popularity of the movie has nothing to do with the fact that it was the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet. It is the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet regardless of how much presence it has to mainstream web users. It is an underground movie that has seen success in various circles and the claim of being the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet is substantiated and corroborated by google searches regarding the subject of the claims. There is no legitimate evidence to disprove the claims and the fact that the movie is not very popular for mainstream net surfers does not make the claims illegitimate. The main claim of being the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet is of historical significance therefore this article should not be deleted.
Please provide sources that meet WP:RS and substanciate the claims made above. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google results are also stacked against this one for notability.. consisting mainly of self promotion and distribution, there's a few "reviews" (minor conversation) among the results but no mention or review by mainstream sources. If this really was a notable topic one would think that there would be significant propagation beyond 70 unique hits over the past half decade. The claims of pioneering the field of internet movie features are also unsubstantiated to down right false. I'd say delete but I'm not logged in, although I'm sure due process will take it's course. Also, I smell like poo. 74.97.109.162

  • Comment Is this a joke? Comparing an amateur net flick to The Godfather Part II is ludicrous. Google results are also stacked against this one for notability.. consisting mainly of self promotion and distribution, there's a few "reviews" (minor conversation) among the results but no mention or review by mainstream sources. If this really was a notable topic one would think that there would be significant propagation beyond 70 unique hits over the past half decade. The claims of pioneering the field of internet movie features are also unsubstantiated to down right false. I'd say delete but I'm not logged in, although I'm sure due process will take it's course. Also, I smell like poo. 74.97.109.162
  • Delete Non-notable. Written like an ad. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable web-based movie with little presence on the web. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 05:18, 8 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. Jersey Devil 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Systems API[edit]

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

Totally incoherent, unencyclopedic, and non-notable. The presence of context is questionable. N Shar (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete probably non notable judging by google hits (always a bad idea), article itself doesn't make any case for notability or even understandability. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an icoherent text. `'mikka 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't even know what to make of this. Also non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading this several times, I think it is intended to be an ad for a brokerage. *head explodes* ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While the current article is terrible, the subject does seem to be vaguely notable in the investment industry. See for example [73] [74]. OTOH, I'm not sure whether what we have here is a good basis for an article, or if we'd be better off starting from scratch. JulesH 20:07, 8 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.
  1. ^ Halle Berry - Halle Berry Bio
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_7&oldid=1081100677"