Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 19

< April 18	April 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:33Z

Alisa Chan[edit]

No mention of notability for what seems like an independent model. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 19:02Z
Keep As the first cosplayer gone camwhore , she is noted for beginning a trend in pornography. (I imagine some one already did this in Japan, but that has nothing to do with Alisa Chan's notability in the US.) -Haikon 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, the only sourced are both sites that belong to here. No independant sources. TJ Spyke 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third-party independent sources. I also question the notability (were it properly sourced) of being the first "cosplayer gone camwhore". The first at something is not necessarily notable if the thing itself is not notable. If it were, my mother would deserve an article for being the first woman to stick 20 nickels up her nose at the same time. --Charlene 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources Iosef ^{U T C} 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, even if it were notable. Lemonsawdust 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, as has been said. I can't find any reliable sources on Google... --Razor ICE 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfun Records[edit]

Non-notable record label. Page created by IP and some of the bands on the label were created by User:Unfun. Sure, some of the bands once on the label have gone on to better things on bigger labels, but Unfun is not notable by association. Furthermore, there are no references that could verify that those bands are even on the label. The article is spammy and another band on the label was deleted earlier for being non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal (band) for details). Fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, verifiability in question, not to mention notabilty. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, because verifiability is iffy, and the label seems to be non-notable.

I forgot to add my signature earlier, so I'll add it now.--queso man 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I am not very familiar with the hardcore/punk scene. However, given what I know from a class about rock and roll and culture I took at university, it seems small independent labels play a very important role. As such, this article has some argument for staying. Fixer1234 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In order for the article to stay on Wikipedia, it must fulfill WP:N, or, more precicely, WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least one article from a newspaper about the label link. Music from the label is available for download from Walmart--this ought to say something about interest in music from the band. You yourself noted that this label has had bands go on to more prominent labels, and that too would seem to indicate this label is an important part of the music scene to which it belongs. *Perhaps we could look into merging various, semi-notable indie record lables into one article? Fixer1234 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability Iosef ^{U T C} 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources provided, and hunting around shows them being mentioned, but no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC. While no doubt small indie labels generally play an important role in rock and roll culture, Wikipedia verification policies make surprisingly little mention of said culture as grounds for exemption from them. So far this label fails WP:MUSIC with flying colors, and there are no sources whatsoever, nor grounds to back up any premise of the label's notability other than wishful "well, they might be"s. RGTraynor 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above-cited notability issues. If they expand their label significantly, or get more significant note from sources other than content availability (e.g. online music vendors) then it should be re-opened for consideration. Until then, it fails WP:MUSIC in my estimation. Lemonsawdust 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources to establish notability.-- danntm ^T _C 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no exception made for this or any other culture. JodyB 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. Acalamari 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source provided and Underground labels are a major force in hardcore. Could fall under WP:ROCK posted message on project page.--St.daniel ^talk 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (a) which source would that be? (b) if it is a "major force," evidence of that must be provided; and (c) What official policy or guideline does WP:ROCK encompass? RGTraynor 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No appearance of being notable. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 01:44Z

Care of the Hair and Nails[edit]

IMDB entry aside, exactly why is this film notable? To quote User:Calton (who placed the notability tag on the page in October 2006: "What IS the point of this article? We're not IMDB Lite." Punkmorten 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No relevant hits for "Care of the Hair and Nails" in Google News Archive or LexisNexis. EALacey 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. --queso man 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 00:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Middleton[edit]

Completing a nom. Original reason for deletion in the talk page of the article. Tizio 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless there are some newspaper references to some part of his political career. DGG 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firm Keep: A short Goggle search revels Joe Middleton is currently an important figure in the Scottish Independence Movement. He is mentioned in articles from the BBC and the Sunday Herald. He also appears in the Scottish Left Review and other left of center publications. An article by him was in the Scotsman. This individual has been featured in “multiple credible news media” pieces and no doubt has relatively “wide name recognition” in Scotland. (I myself live in the States, and thus, have never heard of him.) Fixer1234 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Possibly meets the notability threshold, but without references (which I don't doubt exist) I can't support it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see my post for a list of sources including an article from BBC.com. Fixer1234 08:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself has no references. That is my critique, not that they might exist elswehere.Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If the article simply needs references to stay, then those posted on this page should suffice. They establish a number of biographical details. The text of the article, granted, should be cut to what we have citations for and the ref. should be added, but that can be taken care of by the normal editing process. Hence, the result of the AfD should be keep. Fixer1234 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of the organisations are notable - he can be mentioned where appropriate on their articles. He himself is not.-Doc^g 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Doc Glasgow. He's mentioned trivially, just in passing, in the links mentioned. There's nothing there to build a biography from, so we'd be left at the mercy of spin doctors. Not good for BLP articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think non UK readers might think the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement is more impressive than it is; in reality it's a splinter-from-a-splinter "People's Front of Judea"-style micro-party. Independence First is a tiny pressure group with no links at all to the actual Scottish National Party. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Point taken. However, “Obscure content isn't harmful”, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Further, even if the group is small, it is active and in the news. It is conceivable that people would hear about the group and be interested in learning more. Personally, Wikipedia is often my first stop for quick info. Since Middleton's name often appears in junction with the name of the group, there's a good chance he might be looked up as well. Fixer1234 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep + Comment - A couple of facts need to be set straight about the above comment - the SRSM is not a "splinter group", since it did not split off anything, certainly not off the SNP. It is also not a party, and has not been for a number of years. It is also wrong to state that Independence First has "no links to the actual Scottish National Party", since a) it has a large percentage of SNP folk in it, including Bill Wilson, and SNP politicians have voiced support for their marches, and b) it is a non-/trans-party group as I understand it - so to claim it is part of the SNP or in competition with it, is to completely misunderstand it. In fact, both the SRSM, and Independence First are non-partisan groups. The difference is that the SNP proscribed the SRSM, but has reasonable relations with Independence First. --MacRusgail 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. I think I should add, that Joe Middleton is a published writer too. He contributed to the book, The Scottish Road to Socialism (ed. Gregor Gall, 2007 - which I finished reading a week or two back), and has had articles published in the Edinburgh Evening News [1] (subscriber site, but article may be readable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) [reply]

No one is suggesting that these organisation shouldn't have articles or that this guy can't be mentioned on them.--Doc^g 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I say give people a little more time to expand on this article, then let us decide if it's notable. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been here for almost 18 months, how much longer do you suggest? If new factors emerge, or new information is found, it can be undeleted later.--Doc^g 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- I refuse to pick a time frame, however, I think that now that the deletion tag has been placed on the article there will be more of a drive (hopefully) to keep this one alive. A simple Google search of " "Joe Middleton" Scotland " turns up numerous hits, I'm hopeful some of our Scottish comrades will pick up on the hint that this one may go if no work is put into it. I just hate to see political articles go...- HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Press officer of organisation not notable enough for article. Article in press and chapter in book not sufficent to establish notability. Davewild 18:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a terribly basic premise: what elements of WP:BIO do the Keep supporters believe he fulfills, and what sources do they present to support any such assertion? So far I'm seeing neither. RGTraynor 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, this article must be given more time to establish notability, as the subject seems fairly notable based of Google searches. Later, if the article fails to establish notability, I will whole-heartedly give support for deletion. --queso man 20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is over a year old now. Why must it be given more time, exactly? RGTraynor 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If anything, I think that the fact that it has been here for as long as it has weakens the argument for deletion, it's been here for eighteen months and hasn't bothered anyone until now. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability issues cited above. If there are relevant articles where this man should be included, appropriate information should be included on them. But I support deleting this one, nonetheless. Lemonsawdust 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think the articles that have been added to our discussion, if these articles are added appropriately to the article, are enough to substantiate claims of notability. My thought now is keep and clean. Lemonsawdust 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It either does or does not meet WP:NOTE. At present he does not. JodyB 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your statement implies that it must meet WP:Note to stay on wikipedia. This is not the case. Quote: "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability."Fixer1234 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While it doesn't necessarily need to meet WP:NOTE, it's generally accepted that articles should. The guidelines are, of course, "guidelines" in that they aren't policy, but they still represent more than suggestions. As the guideline itself says, only the "occasional exception" should be made. So, if you see a reason why an exception should be made for this article, it would be helpful to the discussion to hear it. Lemonsawdust 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More links: to an article in the Free Scot and a different article in The Scotsman. Also here and here. Also, here is a link to the book, Is There a Scottish Road to Socialism? mentioned above. Fixer1234 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These don't help. The mainstream media you provide concern the organisations, not the individual directly. The first like isn't an 'independent' (sic) source. These would give strength to mentioning him on articles on the organisations - they are not biographic by a mile--Doc^g 08:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It strikes me that if you are able to support the article Alan McDonald (moderator) (you have contributed to it, in fact), you should have no problem supporting this one. There do not appear to be any “independent” sources cited to support Mr. McDonald's biography. Neither are there links to media articles that establish his “importance”. -- As I've said, I'm from the States and I'm not familiar with Middleton or the Alan McDonald. However, I support the presence of their bios on Wikipedia because they are active leader-members of important organizations/movements. While they would not be included in a regular encyclopedia, the power of Wikipedia is that it is not paper. It can include information on people and groups that are notable with-in specific regions or communities (and by “community” here I do not mean a physical area, but a group of people with similar interests, as in the Gay community, etc). Fixer1234 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 02:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are active leader-members of important organizations/movements, how will the article meet Neutral point of view, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, and Biographies of living persons if there are no WP:RS from which to take the information for the Wikipedia article? -- Jreferee 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no non-trivial coverage. Being quoted at a rally is not 'coverage.'--killing sparrows 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many (40+) letters to the editor written by Joe Middleton, which may have lead to his article Why we need independence as soon as possible, Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) April 26, 2005, by Joe Middleton. Joe occasionally is quoted as the media officer for Independence First. However, the only WP:RS I found about Joe that is independent of Joe is News of the World, January 30, 2005, Section: Home news, page 2, SNP Nazi bust-up. There is a Joe Middleton who was president of Levi Strauss Europe, but the two are unrelated. In short, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article about the topic. Does not meet WP:N. Joe needs to get newspapers to start writing about Joe Middleton if he expects to have an article on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
del nn insufficient coverage for a politician. Mukadderat 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep mentioned in multiple reliable sources. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:36Z

Barbara O'Brien[edit]

A biography about an non-notable author/blogger. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one verifiable major reference (the Oregon PBS link is a trivial mention), and so fails WP:V. Ravenswing 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two RSs for her blogging activities. The PBS link though not entirely devoted to her is not trivial--she appears in the first paragraph & later.DGG 00:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the two in the article, looking her up at newslibrary.com seems to indicate she's been invited several times to participate in CNN and slate.com features that discuss blogosphere reactions to various political events. So her blogging does seem to be at least somehwat notable. Mwelch 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I hadn't not heard of this woman before, but if she was mentioned in the Washington Post...well then she has drawn some attention to herself. Further more, she has a published book and has appeared as panelist on CNN linkas was stated above. Fixer1234 03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Washington Post and other significant sources. --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click Framework[edit]

Somewhat spammy article on non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 04:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:N. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly Self Advertisement, no wide use of term outside of self published articles on SF, jave sites etc. --Jimmi Hugh 01:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an extremely badly written advertisement-like article. — Wenli 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I might have even considered a Speedy:Spam G11 on it. --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:39Z

Mark Driscoll[edit]

Non-notable theologian and author per WP:BIO. I couldn't find anything on him in a quick Google News test, and the other sources I found (or that are cited) seem to fail WP:SPS.RJASE1 ^Talk 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driscoll is a well recognized name in church growth circles, has authored or co-authored four well received books in the past three years, and is recognized by many as a leader in the missional church movement. Some may not agree with him and he may not be notable as a theologian per se, but he is certainly not trivial in nature.Kwitt3 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)— Kwitt3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What are you talking about? Try your google news test again sir: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22mark+driscoll%22&btnG=Search+News forehand

That's a little disingenuous, as none of those Mark Driscolls seem to be this person. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIO "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject." Try checking the links listed on this person's page, and those of Mars Hill church. Also, try a Google search for "Mark Driscoll Mars Hill" and you will find an extensive amount of articles by reliable sources that do not fail WP:SPS.Squidge37 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bizarre RFD. Driscoll is highly notable, frequently noted and widely quoted. I can only assume that the RFD is from someone who merely disagrees with him ... but if that were a criterion for deletion, we'd have no Osama Bin Laden article!

Mark is an up and coming theologian... he seems to be hot at this point in time. You could delete him now... and add him back in when his bio gets larger. I was searching for information on Mark and found that this information was helpful. I would leave it up. Plenty of other sites have content on this individual... maybe Wikipedia is not the place to search for notable people? I am not slamming Wikipedia, I love this site. I just think that Mark is not defined by Mars Hill or Acts 29 entries. Thank you.

So, have we established that Mark Driscoll's page is not fit for deletion? The evidence seems to support this being unnecessary and unwarrented. Squidge37 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the GoogleNews results are clearly about him, and that is enough for Notability. What I may think of his theology is not relevant. DGG 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking solely at GoogleNews isn't the best test because that's very centered very recent news. Looking at Google in general brings up quite a few hits both on Driscoll and on his Confessions of a Reformission Rev. book, which also seems to show solid sales at Amazon. Mwelch 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. props to the nominator for citing WP:SPS Mystache 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article itself links to articles from Salon.com, the Seattle Times, and Christianity Today. That alone establishes notability. I hadn't heard of Mark Driscoll before I came across this AfD, but simply reading the article about him closely tells me this AfD isn't nessessary. Fixer1234 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasons above. Lemonsawdust 04:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Razor (scooter). (I'm not in favor of redirecting to sections within articles, but if someone wants to change it, go ahead.) I have modified the target article, but really there was no new content. Speedy non-admin closure per WP:IAR. YechielMan 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Razor Video Magazine[edit]

Apparent non-notable sports magazine; possible promotion of subject Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable, unsourced, borderline advertising. Kntrabssi 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Razor (scooter)#Razor Video Magazine. It's already been copied into that article. WODUP 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. --queso man 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Monthly[edit]

The article does not establish notability, which makes sense because the newspaper is non-notable. I live in Salem, OR and I have never heard of it. Pablothegreat85 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant argument. DGG 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is relevant. Me not hearing of the newspaper may not be, but you are wrong to say that my entire argument is irrelevant. Pablothegreat85 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)--- sorry i wasn't clear --that was the only part I meant. I think you may be right about notability.DGG 03:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minimal assertion of notability and completely unsourced. Goodnightmush^Talk 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now has 3 sources. 1 seems to corroborate some, but the second is just a shipping address and the third 404. Goodnightmush^Talk 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as an established alternative monthly in Oregon's capital. Has good coverage of local politics and history from a different perspective from the Statesman Journal. Widely available for free all over downtown Salem, at businesses and in free-standing newspaper boxes. Article does need cleanup and expansion. Katr67 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't want to resort to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I will point out that we have articles on the Eugene Weekly and Willamette Week. Granted, the SM hasn't won any awards so isn't as notable. And though this isn't a valid counter-argument either, I also live in Salem and have been aware of the SM since before I moved here. It's hard not to find a copy downtown, don't know about the rest of the city. That said, I'm having trouble finding outside references, though I did add a couple to the article. Any suggestions would be helpful. I'd like to find some circulation figures. BTW, I'm not associated with the publication in any way, just an interested local. Sadly, there's not quite enough culture in Salem to support an alternative weekly... Katr67 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Willamette Week to Salem Monthly. Also, I'm not quite sure that the Eugene Weekly should have its own article. If someone can show me that Salem Monthly is indeed notable I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. PablotheGreat 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep agree with Katr67 on notabality and also agree with Katr about cleanup being needed but we have a pressident of allowing Alternative newspapers as they do have a claim to nobality even though they are more outside the mainstream Seven Days (newspaper) For example. Your argument that you have never heard of it is not a reason for deletion although it is a valid argument. However we do usally use that as a main reason for deletion. --St.daniel ^talk 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient assertion of notability, at least to the level of other similar alternative newspapers. Realkyhick 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like spam or, at best, a press release. The only quote is from the editor. I would ask, where is the notability? Where are the multiple sources needed under WP:NOTE? Take a close look at the pdf file linked on the page. It's fluff paper that writes easy going articles. There's just no notability here. JodyB 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a fair amount of hits on Google that are groups touting their coverage in the paper or referencing topics covered such as the deaf school debate. I've seen it on campus, but since I don't care about Salem I don't read it. Aboutmovies 07:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just a general comment on newspaper notability. Who is supposed to cover a local paper, the local paper? In the small town I live in no paper is going to write about my local paper. Why would they want to promote a potential competitor for the limited ad revenue? And in towns with only a newspaper and no other media outlet, there is not going to be someone to cover a paper unless they win some important award. Now that would make them notable, but then there are a lot of entities that would no longer be notable if only important award winners were the sole criteria. I think newspapers in general should automatically meet notability requirements much like towns do (at least I’m assuming they do since the majority have only a census citation if that in the way of sources). But that’s my three cents. Aboutmovies 05:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an actual newspaper that covers primarily a state capital city. It's ironic that an article written in this newspaper would be considered a "published work by a reliable source" to establish notability of another topic and yet this newspaper up for AfD itself. --Oakshade 04:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two comments above, I realize this might be stretching things a bit, but being an established news outlet is a valid claim to notability IMO. --killing sparrows 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am inclined to give greater latitude regarding referencing to media such as newspapers because the near-dearth of metareporting makes finding such citations challenging for even clearly notable titles. Serpent's Choice 11:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (by consensus.) --Aarktica 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Action Against Homophobia[edit]

Non-notable organisation. Pablothegreat85 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:LOCAL and WP:AGF. Mystache 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean. It seems sufficiently notable, but it still needs more nuts-and-bolts work. Lemonsawdust 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable but needs sources... --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm uncertain where the above "it's notable" opinions are basing this on - I did a web search on the topic and the only places I found this mentioned were on lists of LGBT organisations and on other activist pages' links sections. I can find no non-trivial secondary sources covering this group, which is a requirement of WP:ORG. As the article is completely devoid of any sources establishing notability - and indeed, doesn't even properly assert notability - my opinion has to be to delete. If someone with better search skills or better sources can find reliable sources that meet the demands of WP:ORG I will happily change my mind. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify the basis for my opinion: I did a search for the full organization name beforehand, and I got about 1400 hits. The organization is cited by a number of independent sources. You're very right, though, in saying that the page doesn't properly assert its notability. I think it should be cleaned up to reflect its sources, but I feel that the number of secondary sources - which, though generally from small organizations, aren't necessarily trivial under WP:ORG - warrants keeping it around so it can be given appropriate references. I hope that even if this doesn't change your mind it at least explains my personal rationale. Lemonsawdust 15:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Lemonsawdust - restructure to reference the secondary sources and assert notability. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not assert notability, though it could likely do so with the addition of some sources. If they are provided, I could be persuaded to change my mind. But folks, don't make us do your work for you. Realkyhick 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge to homophobia with an edit and further sourcing. Lostinlodos 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a notable community activist organization for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards.-- Jreferee 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news brings up two articles mentioning the organization from three days ago, and there are over 40 more articles mentioning it in the archives. I also found an article through msn.com news. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These articles all serve to demonstrate that there is a significant body of independent, non-trivial publication to warrant an article in Wikipedia. The WP:N guidelines, while stipulating that groups with only local scope are "usually" not notable, does not say that nationally important groups with a primarily local scope are usually not notable. My Keep is as strong as ever, given the significant non-trivial documentation this group has. Lemonsawdust 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, misleading "references" are not references at all. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 21:32Z

Robo (film)[edit]

I've searched the entire net for links to at least confirm the validity of this film, and found absolutely nothing. The only thing I could find was that "Robo" or more accurately "Robot" was the working title of Shankar's (apparently the director of the film), Anniyan. The entire page is filled with unconfirmed information. Also, all citations provided in the article are ALL fake. All of them lead to bogey links having nothing to do with the film whatsoever. The article may also be a candidate for speedy deletion. The creator of this article, User:Hedgehog Kanna may also be a sockpuppet of User:Prin who has been blocked countless times for abusive sockpuppetry. Therefore, I propose the article be deleted. -- Hariharan91 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nom points out, none of the links actually relate to a film called "Robo", the article is crystal-balling and without reliable sources it should go. The Rambling Man 11:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the film provides references and adequate explainations on the film and about its initial origin via links provided in the refences section of the article. I believe comprehensively that User:Hariharan is generally reverting a good article, which will be expanded in the future. Hedgehog Kanna 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The links and refs do not relate to the film itself. Additionally, User:Hedgehog Kanna seems to have created yet another sockpuppet who has removed the AFD from the article. Mmoyer 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom and Mmoyer; all the links refer to another film instead. So far, this is looking like WP:HOAX. RGTraynor 19:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Hoax-y, sockpuppets, all sorts of nefarious stuff going on here. Realkyhick 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep ~ AGK 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KLPI-FM[edit]

Non-notable student-run radio station. None of the links listed do much along the lines of proving any notability-EMP 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As non-notable per nom. Links provided, if anything, assert its non notability. IvoShandor 12:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios" but low power unlicensed Part 15 stations are generally not. That said, the article and some of the supporting sites (but NOT the FCC) indicate they somehow operate at 10 to 20 watts and would need to buy a transmitter to achieve the 4 kilowatts they have been licensed for for many years. A very wierd situation, because in my experience radio stations must submit proof of performance for each license renewal, and there is no hint of a problem in the FCC files online. (revised 4/15)Edison 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think student-run organizations are generally notable, and this one doesn't appear to be exceptional in any way. Never won an award, very low power, and so on. -- Mikeblas 13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is about an FCC licensed broadcast station, not merely a student organization. Edison 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: What in the hell? This is an FCC-licensed broadcast radio station. [2] In what universe are FCC-licensed stations non-notable? RGTraynor 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't care if my table lamp has more watts than the transmitter. It's an FCC-licensed station, so it's notable enough. Realkyhick 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on radio and TV precedents. If it's semi- or fully independent and it's FCC/Ofcom/(insert national broadcasting regulatory body name here)-licensed, it's a keep. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whenever I try to delete radio stations, I am told that every radio station with a signal is notable. Therefore, this one is also notable. Captain panda 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a notable college radio station for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards.-- Jreferee 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/vote/complaint OK, if all registered radio stations are inherently notable, why even bother having this discussion at all? It's all very frusterating because the radio station isn't notable enough for wikipedia, barely showing up on the radar (no pun intended)...yet policy keeps it here, over true notability. Barring all guidelines and red tape, I would say delete, but I won't stand in the way of an admin who follows the guidelines and keeps it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're having a discussion because someone filed an AfD on the article. RGTraynor 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Town & Country (band)[edit]

This band doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, despite having released numerous albums-EMP 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This band should actually meet WP:MUSIC from criterion #4. The band has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Thrill Jockey appears to be a notable indepedent label (I even own an album by Tortoise released on the label, as it turns out).-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC per above statements, but the article really needs help. →Ed Gl 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It barely clears the notability bar because of its label, but as Ed said, it really needs work. Realkyhick 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the band really does meet music erasing it does not make sense yuckfoo 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete no releases, fails WP:MUSIC. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:53Z

Annanonvuole[edit]

Delete as per nom, virtually no Ghits, no real notability here so failing WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No albums released? A band member leaving to get a real hob? Their most notable success entailing airplay on a local station? Maybe later, but certainly not now. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a band with no releases really a band? If so, my nonexistant band should have a page. --Cyrus Andiron 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jools Cooper[edit]

Two notability tags, concerns never addressed. Being credited on album sleeves <> multiple non-trivial sources. Source it or lose it, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I don't even see an assertion of notability here. Mwelch
Delete regular. "his band. Frakah winning the London heat of the Melody Maker 'Folk Rock' contest" should count as an assertion of notability. That said, it is unsourced. Resurgent insurgent 01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Could be recreated down the line if someone can produce verifiable evidence of notability, but at present is essentially an unsourced resume. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no proof, no way. Realkyhick 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 00:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge content merged into In the Court of the Crimson King article blanked and redirected to retain edit history as per GNU requirements. Gnan garra 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Godber[edit]

This article is about an artist who painted just one painting, and died at the age of 24 in 1970. He was also a computer programmer, although there is no indication whatsoever that anything he did in computer programming was notable in itself. Anyway, the painting in question just happens to be the cover art of the debut album of one of my favourite bands of all time, but I'm truly questioning how notable Barry Godber is going on this painting alone. Searching for his name minus the term "wikipedia" returns well under 1000 Google hits, which seem to be unofficial fan websites. Therefore he would not pass the notability guideline for biographies. Also, the article reads like a memorial, which is one thing that Wikipedia is of course not. However, if this does get deleted I will try merging the basic facts about him and the painting from this article to In the Court of the Crimson King. -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic facts merged.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable in the article that isn't In the Court of the Crimson King. Mystache 01:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While the topic is not really notable on its own, this decent article conveys some contextual information about progressive rock, providing a local habitation for the vivid Fripp quote. No big deal, but I see no compelling reason to delete. Stammer 05:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete, fails WP:BIO. I read over both articles, and if the only reason for the Godber article to exist is the Fripp quote, merge it over to the album. Ravenswing 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete on WP:BIO grounds. Any noteworthy information here can be merged to provide the same contextual information. Lemonsawdust 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment all relevant information has been merged already.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to the album. possibly worth a mention there.--killing sparrows 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Stammer, above. Smeggysmeg 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - creating this one painting, given the widespread distribution and public awareness of the cover, is notable in and of itself, IMO. Colon el Tom 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. Everything essential is already there, and the article cannot stand because of one quote, no matter how "vivid". Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. But more importantly, there simply does not appear to be multiple reliable sources that discuss Godber in any more depth than a passing mention to credit the artist of the album cover. Serpent's Choice 11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a notable artist and computer programmer for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards.-- Jreferee 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As HisSpaceResearch mentioned, the relevant information has already been merged into another article. Unless new information emerges to establish notability, a redirect would probably be the best course of action at this point. --Aarktica 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to C. N. Annadurai. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:16Z

Kambarasam[edit]

No assertion of notability. Books are not inherently notable and this does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability for books Hnsampat 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say that association with C. N. Annadurai and importance in the pro-Dravidian Self-respect movement seems to grant notability. Google Books hits show that there are published works about it [3], which would begin to satisfy notability for books. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. The article is poorly-written, but the book seems to be somewhat notable. It has been mentioned in several other works[4]. A search with alternative spelling Kamba Rasam also shows some notability[5][6]. A merge and redirect to C. N. Annadurai is another option. utcursch | talk 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with C. N. Annadurai. Realkyhick 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per utcursch.Baka man 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Appears to be a malicious propaganda material against Dravidian leaders. Anwar 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
merge and redirect to Annadurai, the author. The article now has some serious NPOV problems.--killing sparrows 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect in the short-term since the article is so terrible. When someone can write a decent stub with reliable source on it, I'll change to keep. Gizza^Chat ^© 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, unsourced, POV, fails WP:LIST. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:57Z

X-Files Famous Actors Non-Recurring[edit]

Indiscriminate and problematic list with subjective inclusion criteria. There is no connection between the actors on this list appearing on The X-Files and subsequently appearing in other TV series or films. Also, when is an actor considered "famous" enough to be included? And what about actors who were already successful when they appeared on The X-Files? Masaruemoto 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "non-recurring" mean "only appeared as one character in only one episode"? If so, this list does not seem very noteworthy; try making it into one short section in the main X-Files page? Anthony Appleyard 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper, this can be a perfectly encyclopaedic list (as per WP:LIST) with a bit of expansion/referencing. Matthew 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper does not apply here - it means the amount of articles is limitless. It doesn't mean that that all other policies can be ignored. Masaruemoto 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Does not apply here" - I'm not following you, where does it say that? I actually see "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover", this is one of those topics :-). Matthew 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But Wikipedia is also not a directory... --Razor ICE 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not paper does not mean that every article stays just because there is room for it. We still have policies. Saying an article should stay for that reason does not help the discussion. If that were the case, we wouldn't need AFD. --Cyrus Andiron 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is entirely based on confusing correlation and causation. Because of that the list can only be original research. Jay32183 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is comparable to a theoretical article called "Blonde-Haired Lord of the Rings Elves who appreciate the colour and texture of Limburger cheese." --queso man 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:LISTCRUFT, I don't think this is even notable enough to appear in X-Files as Anthony suggest above. Also WP:OR (though I guess you could look up the cast list of every X-Files episode ever), but fails WP:LIST: 'The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references."' --Razor ICE 11:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not important, not sourced, not even good enough to merge. It's four names! Why do we need it? --Cyrus Andiron 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly defined, requires a POV judgement call as to what constitutes "famous". 23skidoo 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light-Weight Identity[edit]

NN identity service Computerjoe 's talk 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP and WP:N, and as promotional material per WP:SPAM. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think a well sourced page could stand an AFD, but one sourced by an email and primary web pages does not. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. Realkyhick 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not notable. Acalamari 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to John Piper (theologian). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:16Z

Desiring God[edit]

This organization/book has no notability of its own, outside of the notability of the author/founder, John Piper (theologian).RJASE1 ^Talk 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John Piper (theologian) (a proposal I already made, as the existing merge tag demonstrates -- just waiting on input from others since I had one person dispute the merge). --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - 220,000 ghits for "desiring god" "john piper"?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but why does it need its own article? As the nom. says, it doesn't seem notable apart from Piper. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as it has been tagged for a while. No reason for it to have its own article, content may be important but not substantial enough for a separate article. Goodnightmush^Talk 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A Google search on "desiring god"+"john piper" actually only gets 164 unique Google hits.[7]. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it already! Realkyhick 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the others. Captain panda 03:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Voices[edit]

Enough of a notability assertion to save it from a speedy by me, but AfD might delete it more gently anyway, perhaps... -Splash - tk 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject may or may not meet WP:BAND considering the artist's label is a nationalized industry. Article does, however, definitely fail WP:A. Mystache 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no verification. Realkyhick 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability on the face of it, and I wasn't able to find much of anything on Google. YechielMan 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, not sure if a nationalised industry counts as a "major record label" under the terms of WP:Music but if they were genuinely notable as claimed one would imagine there'd be a load of references on the web, but there's virtually nothing. A1octopus 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few to no Ghits, not absolute criteria but in the absence of any other references, ke garne (what to do?)?

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7. Daniel Bryant 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tugbie[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things you made up in school one day. Selket ^Talk 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mystache 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the authors admittance in article that he made it up in recess one day, should have been speedly deleted by an admin already. --Jimmi Hugh 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Absolutely no assertion of notability or sourcing. Tagging it now. Goodnightmush^Talk 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete doesn't even deserve an AfD --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. God, but this is stupid. BTLizard 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunication tower Großerlach[edit]

No relevance, there are hundreds of towers like this one. --Elsm 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This very ordinary and utilitarian structure has no demonstrated notability. The precedent has been to delete articles which, like this, are mere stubs based merely on a broadcast existing in some data base. Edison 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Today must be tower day at AFD. This is yet another non notable big tower. --Cyrus Andiron 15:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcastic merge back into List of towers where this probably came from. -Haikon 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Equally sarcastic merge into List of towers (and a tip of the hat to Haikon). Realkyhick 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone famous jumps from it. To satisfy the inclusionists I would accept said jump with or without parachute.--killing sparrows 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a notable tower for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards.-- Jreferee 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Storm[edit]

Article appers to be about fictional or unknown artist. Google request spelling mistake, and only solid references on You Tube and MySpace. Also note "comical" wording of article and age of artist. Has apparently made no achievments. --Jimmi Hugh 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No label, no albums, no concerts. Mystache 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Article is unattributed and appears to be unattributable to reliable third-party sources. --Charlene 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. label (Beddroc entertainment), Currently recording Debut album, Artist has worked with Elephant Man,Tango,Chris brown, Ray J just to name a few. Quinton storm is 18 and he is a rising artist but definitely not an unknown artist airwalkerneo 10:11, 20 April 2007
- Comment If this is so, please add references on the page for verification. I did try searching for some but could find nothing related to him and any of the other artists you mentioned. I definetly couldn't find a single notable record label with mention of him either. --Jimmi Hugh 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:SPAM for this article choked with self-promotion and minutiae about what he did in seventh grade and the like. A directed Google search (excluding Myspace and Wiki mirrors) returns almost zero hits [8] for this ostensibly "not unknown" artist. Demonstrably his Myspace friends list knows him pretty well, but he's got a long way to go before scratching the paint on WP:MUSIC. When his album is actually released, and if it actually sells, then the creator should check back. RGTraynor 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Smells like a hoax to me, but even if it isn't, it's definitely not notable by WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like fiction. And unless there's a major book about him somewhere, he isn't notable fiction. Lemonsawdust 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colossus of Eislingen[edit]

154 foot tall pylon --Elsm 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, it's just a power pole? Non-notable. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am at a loss for words. MER-C 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random utilitarian structure. The article is full of unreferenced original research and hyperbole. We have not kept similar articles about telephone poles or power pylons. Edison 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't mind waiting to find out what major events surround this pylon, but given there are none, kill it --Jimmi Hugh 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tall electric tower.... That's it right. Okay, well unless something happens and it becomes news, I think it's just a big pole. Of which, there are many.--Cyrus Andiron 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colossal Delete. Calling a moderately tall power pylon a colossus and comparing it to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world? This is borderline WP:BJAODN material. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a pylon for god's sake. I can see six of them out of my window right now, should I get writing? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well if your pylons are bigger than 154 foot, maybe you should! ;) Seriously though, given the obviousness consenus about it's deletion and the utter nonsense of the article, is there a speedy delete tag we can assign it within policy? --Jimmi Hugh 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really match any of the WP:CSD categories, so it can't be speedied. In theory an admin could close this discussion per WP:SNOW but that would be a judgement call. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot see in what way the structure is notable nor can I find any hits for the name that aren't from Wikipedia. Adambro 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by being eaten by a fire-breathing dinosaur: I feel so inadequate! There are no pylons out my office window. (There are, however, many boats, since I'm staring at Boston Harbor. Hey! There's the Quincy commuter boat! I'll go write an article on that!) Ravenswing 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by chain saw. There's a radio tower bigger than that atop Red Mountain in Birmingham, Alabama. Should we include that, too? (Answer: No.) Realkyhick 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it falls on someone famous.--killing sparrows 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The article is a direct translation from the article de:Koloss von Eislingen in German Wikipedia. It's been up since May, 2004. I suspect the tower is more notable than we realize. Vegasprof 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... based upon what evidence? Ravenswing 13:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. No evidence, other than the fact that it's survived nearly three years on the German Wikipedia without deletion. But, see my comment below: Vegasprof 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a picture of this pylon: http://www.home.zonnet.nl/arnie.berkers/eisl8kl.jpg Nothing special in my eyes. --80.128.186.130 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is existing another artical about an electricity pylon on both sides of a canal: Huddersfield Narrow Canal Pylon. --84.57.130.45 08:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for Delay. The German page has just (yesterday) been nominated for deletion, for the third time (previous times were May 2004 and August 2004: it survived those). Is it possible to delay the decision until we see what the Germans have to say? Vegasprof 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why, any more than they're bound to delete just because we might. Certainly if any genuine proof of notability is presented in that AfD, hopefully someone will bring it here, but we can make our own decisions. Ravenswing 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I just took another look at the German AfD discussion. Not one person has given any substantive reason to keep the article, although several people claim that it can't be nominated for deletion because it survived deletion before. Most of the German users just want to delete it. The reason I asked for delay was, just in case there was some notable feature of this tower that we didn't know of but they did. Apparently not. So, my vote, finally, is Delete. Vegasprof 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was born less than 10 km away from this pole, my parents still live there and I've never heard of it. Bla bla 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Xdamr. MER-C 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Ford[edit]

Auto dealership. Claim to fame is being the 5th Ford dealership in the US which I suppose is something but I doubt that we can find much in the way of significant third-party coverage to have the article progress past a perma-stub. (Of course, I don't mind being wrong!) Pascal.Tesson 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The site of the first Ford dealership might be notable (perhaps even a historic site), but this hardly is. --Helm.ers 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Fire: Ye gads. It's a two-line stub about an auto dealership. Which has had zero substantive edits since the article's creation. Which is over two years ago now. Which has been vandalized, and obscenely. Which has no sources, and never has had. Completely fails WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:LAME. RGTraynor 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh boy, have you had a rough day at the office? :-) Delete with fire it is! Pascal.Tesson 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with battery acid. Seems more appropriate to the subject. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V, just for starters. Realkyhick 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete with the fury of a hurricane, with an A7. With the exception of stating that it is the fifth oldest dealer in the nation, it doesn't bother touting its own notability - and just how long it's been around isn't necessarily a notability criteria. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vickers (academia)[edit]

Tagged for CSD A7 speedy deletion by User:82.36.96.123, and then tagged for PROD by him when I removed the speedy tag on the grounds that there is an assertion of some notability. Reason given for proposed deletion: "barely notable, no reliable sources". I'm dithering a bit on this one: I dispute the no reliable sources claim (half the article is backed up by his biography on the University of Birmingham's website, the other half by an article from Sinclair User magazine). But the notability is borderline - he doesn't meet WP:PROF guidelines from his academic activities, but he wa sa major contributor to the ZX Spectrum, and did found a (not-particularly-successful) company Jupiter Cantab. --Stormie 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote - I'm undecided. Keep per the information provided by David Eppstein and Madmedea. --Stormie 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really has done nothing beyond his one achievement with the ZX. If anything else about that topic needs to be said, add it to the main ZX article. --Jimmi Hugh 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would not be natural to include information about the ZX81 and Jupiter ACE in the ZX Spectrum article - purists will delete this information in an instant. --Frodet 09:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree with the previous editor: it is only right that the article be kept, if only for Steve's contributions to the Jupiter ACE and ZX81. I don't want to go down the line of "if you delete this, you have to delete that too", but it seems to be a good case to me...matt.smart ^talk/contribs 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep As I see it, he does meet the PROF guidelines, quite apart from his earlier applied work. He has published about 30 papers in the major theoretical computer science journals, and directed doctoral students. The article was very much more substantial in earlier versions; the anonymous nom. (IP is an internet provider in the UK) has systematically deleted relevant material to reduce the article to the minimum, and then tried to delete the article itself. I have restored the parts which are appropriately sourced by the official university web page. DGG 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally a second anon has made unjustified neg. comments on the article talk page, That IP is from .cs.bham.ac.uk. , which is Vicker's department. There's apparently an student there who does not realize that WP is NOT ratemyprofessors DGG 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found evidence that his book was used as a text at Brno Univ. of Tech., Tulane, Univ. del País Vasco, The Estonian Winter School in Computer Science, Uppsala, Sofia and probably others (I got tired of scanning Google results) and it has many citations. That seems enough for WP:PROF for me. —David Eppstein 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well published and cited academic in his field.[9] This is a non-debate as the article just needs expanding not deleting.Madmedea 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the person who initially proposed the deletion of the article, I have to admit that there have been much more support and recent contributions to the article than I had considered possible. Therefore, I do not uphold my view that the page as a whole is irrelevant and needs to be deleted. Steve Vickers is indeed notable for his contributions to the development of UK home computers. By the way, I have never been a student of Steve Vickers, as it was suggested by some users, in an attempt to undermine my credibility. Anonymous editing is an important right in Wikipedia. Quite the contrary, I have a lot of sympathy and respect for Steve's achievements and contributions. However, I will still allow myself to contribute to the article and remove incorrect and unreliable statements. 147.188.192.41 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it was taken wrong, but i was reporting what I saw in connection with what had been said.DGG 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that the evidence has been given, can we close this discussion and remove the deletion tag ?--Thomas Arelatensis 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenstadt Transmission Tower[edit]

No overall relevance. There are dozens of military radio relays in Germany and probably thousands in the whole world. --Elsm 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a quick search i see nothing of particular relevence about this one transmission tower. Perhaps a passing reference in a more major article would be more suitable. --Jimmi Hugh 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unless someone can establish notability about this tower, that is. Mmoyer 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random utilitarian tower of no particular importance. Lacks multiple reliable sources showing it is notable. Random towers such as this have typically had the articles deleted. Edison 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Non notable big tower. --Cyrus Andiron 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable and no real assertion of notability. That's an awful lot to say about what amounts to a pretty run of the mill transmission tower. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this from the same author who gave us Colossus of Eislingen, the world-famous pylon? Come on, folks. Realkyhick 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone famous gets electrocuted by entangling a kite in the wires of this tower.--killing sparrows 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7. Daniel Bryant 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hamilton[edit]

Non-notable indivdual. I could find no mention of him in sources considered adequate for establishing notability. Mmoyer 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I advise you tag it for speedy deletion with db-bio... he is totally non-notable. --Jimmi Hugh 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Done. Speedy delete. MER-C 07:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has been quite the parade of socks and spas. It goes without saying that "its interesting", "I like it" and "its true" are not good reasons to keep content. The fundamental concerns of those arguing for deletion have not been met. Innacurate media reports are common to news that emerges shortly after major incidents. Discussion of such reports relating to the massacre (and in particular those of Michael Sneed) has not taken place in multiple reliable sources such that an article can be based around them. Those who are not just passing through that advocate keeping do so mainly on a "wait and see basis" but one can just as easily wait until a topic has become notable before covering it- indeed that is our standard practice. There are also valid WP:BLP concerns about an article which, even with a substantial rewrite, still emphasises the error of one person who is not otherwise notable.

The tenor of this debate is fundamentally in favour of deletion. The matter would appear from the discussion to deserve a brief mention at Virginia Tech massacre if anything. WjBscribe 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

Article is not a bio of columnist Michael Sneed, but is being used as a forum for constant revert wars regarding her coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre; Delete --Mhking 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment for those inclined to !vote - Please give the article at WP:AADD a read before casting your !vote here. In particular, also look at WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you think it's interesting or you like it is not going to be considered when the closure of this discussion happens. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe inaccurate media reports are already documented in the Virginia Tech Massacre article; this does not need its own article.
Keep and Change the title to Michael Sneed Incident. The news event has achieved a status -- major media outlet coverage in one critical day of one major event, and the offical response from a major country's Foreign Minstry also adds to its notability. People are concerned about quality of news coverage and professionalism of journalistic practice, especially those with notable practical impact. Ww2007april 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Ww2007april (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- To state that the event being not "notable" certainly contradicts the fact the global impact it had achieved. I find it hard to understand people still using not notable to argue for erasing this article completely. And Jimmi's charged description of all keep votes as rubbish is even harder to comprehend. Ww2007april 05:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (indented, due to second !vote) Rockpocket 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well though i still stand by the comment, in my defence, at the time, nearly all the keep comments said things along the lines off "She is a bad reporter and people need to know this". Of course even with the number of comments now claiming that this article is notable, i have to disagree. The event as a whole caused the problem, and i am sure some reporter claiming what she did would have upset no one if he hadnt murdered a load of people. Events have numerous factors, let us mention the small ones like this in the main article and not bloat wikipedia with nonsense. It is not one comment per article on wikipedia! --Jimmi Hugh 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep comments, no matter how "rubbish" they are as you feel, exactly reflect people's strong opinions toward the article and its subject, which in turn prove this article's notability. Even your own STRONG opinion in favor of deleting this article also shows it can stir up different views, and thus, the article is notable and worth being kept here.Dongdongdog 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is just bull.. on that basis, we could never delete an article from wikipedia, because if even one was argued it would be classes as notable... get a back bone! --Jimmi Hugh 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes very tiring to show those who refuse to see the obvious: an news event happened, spreads in major news networks on prime time over and over again, the Foreign Ministry of one certain country decided that this is notable enough to issue a statement. And however it is still not "notable". Besides, shouting and calling people names does not strengthen your arguements Ww2007april 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never in my life shouted or called people names. There is no need for such vulgar behaviour. And to put things in perspecitive, a huge number of people see my way, a huge number see your way. And we all feel that it is tiring trying to convince the opposite of what we think is right. We may never succeed. But i will continue to try and make you see my way as logn as can in order to enlighten you, as i am sure you will try to enlighten me. Notability on wikipedia is not based on statements issued by goverments... once again wikipedia would be bloated if this were so. The Notability we are arguing here is whether or not this is notable enough to warrant an entire article. Given that policy dictates people do something notable, this article fails. It also only makes one point which could easily be intergrated into the main article on the massacre. --Jimmi Hugh 06:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, from what I am seeing here, the original "totally not notable" has evolved into "not notable enough". Let put this aside for now, for it will take time for one to travel from one extreme into some sort of middle ground. And talking about calling names, the "Bull" and the "..." right after that does not look like a good word to me, or you may argue the innocence of a certain kind of animal, but come on, we are all adults here.Ww2007april 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm there is a slight difference between defining a comment as bull and name calling... but never mind. I aplogize if you got the impression i thought that Michael Sneed should be purged from wikipedia... quite the opposite i am sure she could fill her own section on the main topic... this is where i have always tried to stand on the subject. I just definetly don' think we follow policy by giving her a whole topic. --Jimmi Hugh 06:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And, I assume you also stand by your "rubbish" comment as well? Ww2007april 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course... all keep articles at the time i made the comment were in my opinion "rubbish" and not worthy of response. Luckily the conversation has stirred up a bit... despite no one giving a reason why an article about a woman who still appaears to only have this one area of notability should be kept --Jimmi Hugh 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very well then. Now could my esteemed friend Jimmi do me this one courtesy by letting me know: are you still standing by your "rubbish" statement as we speak right now? Ww2007april 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No... that would be like America standing by its comment that it wishes to split from england and become a nation in it's own right. Oh yes, it already did that, times have changed. Obviously our opinions differ, but i think it is obvious people are attepting to make arguments as to why this article is notable. Of course you are failing to make any comment that does not simply warrant this article for a merge into the main event. --Jimmi Hugh 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very pleased to see all descriptive bulls plus their trailing dots and "rubbish" being tossed away (assumed this one mission accomplished?), and people simmered down. This is practically the only way people can talk to each other -- which means one speaking, one listening, and vise versa. A clear, and two way conversation is very hard to achieve, even in this age of net. The difficulty of maintaining a somewhat noise free channel is almost essential for people to understand each other -- and this is one reason that I am holding news events and whatever happened about far reaching media "notable". A person can efficiently maintain his or her acquantance circle up to no more than 200 personally, for the rest of his or her information need, he has rely on the good faith of the mass media, and when the media fails, it is "notable".Ww2007april 06:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My suggestion is merging it with "Michael Sneed Rumor" article, which was created with a more proper name, and link it to Virginia Tech Mass Shooting article. The article records how the false media reporting was generated and spread and the huge influence it had on innocent people. It also makes a good subject for future sociological study. --Tinbbs 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Tinbbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I agree, merge them both, then delete them in one... will be half as less hastle for the admins, good thinking! --Jimmi Hugh 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article describes a news report event in the Virginia Tech Massacre media coverage. The report was very widely referenced on-line and off-line both in the US and overseas, and also caused some controversy. It played a very important role in the first few hours on the massacre's news coverage about finding the correct killer. This wikipedia article covers the origin and development of this controversial report as well as people's response to it. It lists all the sources accurately and completely. So it deserves to be saved in wikipedia for record-keeping's sake.Dongdongdog 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Dongdongdog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And why shouldn't it just be a passing note in the main article? You seem to forget we are arguing this one article, not the whole damn massacre! --Jimmi Hugh 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe event is significant enough to warrant a place in Wikipedia. The massacre is terrible. But it doesn't mean anything related to it but less significant should be overshadowed by it. Put an article here doesn't affect the main entry on the massacre. It only gives people more opportunities to fully grasp this tragedy. It's part of the important history.
With all the details, this article is too long to be put in the main article. People need to look at the big picture. This tragic event does not include the mass shooting itself only but also the responses of the society, including general public, news media, and authorities, and the influence they have on the people and the society. This article focuses on one aspect of the event and definitely deserves a separate entry. --Tinbbs 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not a bio of columnist Michael Sneed, but is being used as a forum for constant revert wars regarding her coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre; --Mhking 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MergeI agree this article should be merged into Michael Sneed Rumor

Keep,this is the truth, nothing but the truth, it deserves a place here.--Albertwang 04:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Albertwang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep,this article deserves its place.Her report was the first journalistic widely spread in the world.--Ksyrie 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; What is the reason for deletion here? I'm not saying it should be kept, but I'm not sure what the nominator's reason is. Masaruemoto 02:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's because this doesn't have enough information about Michael Sneed, then either that should be added, or the article name changed to better reflect the content. (if either he, or the story, deserve an article). Masaruemoto 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to deserve his own article. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Michael Sneed is a woman. Zagalejo 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shows how much Jared has followed this issue. No wonder he/she claimed that it is not notable:-)--Zhangwl03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had it been a more prominent issue, and she been a more prominent figure, I would have known :) Seriously, though, that has nothing to do with anything though. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how wiki admins judge if it is notable enough. Like I pointed out in the discussion page of "Michael Sneed", it is a big issue for certain groups of people while being irrelevant to others. --Tinbbs 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is based on unbiased notability. For example a Christian admin would think Jewish points of view were notable. But no one in there right mind would think something some kids made up in the playground was notable, or that one news paper article that changed nothing in the world warranted notability --Jimmi Hugh 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we had an article on every journalist who provided unsupported suppositions later proven false, the servers would crash. Every notable incident has its rumours started by journalists - every one. Just because this is recent doesn't mean that this incredibly, incredibly minor rumour or its originator is notable. --Charlene 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please nominate a similar event not recorded in wikipedia. Thanks. Zhangwl03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the reason for this article is not because the false report but it's global impact and notability, especially in Chinese communities. Therefore, keeping it does not mean we need "article on every journalist who provided unsupported suppositions". Sweeper77 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It had no impact... the murders had an impact, and this article was a single factor within that. Therefore this deserves nothing more than a passing comment in the main article. If you bring attention to it then you should bring attention to all journlalists who publish unsupported claims. --Jimmi Hugh 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article and Michael Sneed's rumor contain the similar content. It describes a historical event rather than a bio, so suggest to merge this one into that one. Also the title might need to be changed to conform to wiki rules. Zhangwl03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a prominent columnist in the Chicago Sun-Times (circulation 368,062), I'd say Michael Sneed would have warranted an article without the recent hubbub. However, it might be best to start with a fresh slate. Zagalejo 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article deserves its place in this free encyclopedia. Even if we have an article for every bad journalist, so what - if the servers cannot handle the traffic, wikipedia should not be in this business and does not deserve a place on the internet. The news business is a serious business, and people deserve to know who's creating false news just to gain publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duming153 (talk • contribs) — Duming153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. If this event is not notable, I don't know what notable is. The false claim by this journalist has been cited all around the world and by all the networks, and it happened with the VT massacre. It definitely deserves its place in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeww (talk • contribs) — Georgeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

...The article Virginia Tech massacre serves this purpose nicely. I am not contesting the idea of the rumor, but I am just saying that its notability comes exclusively from its connections with the massacre. Thus, it should not get its own page, but be merged back into VA Tech mass. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article reflects a serious incident related to the recent VT tragedy, and the columnist and her product by itself receives the global attention and even the Chinese government had to react to it. This is certainly notable enough. This article could be gradually expand to be a bio of this columnist, considering she is globally well-known now, even so the current content in the article should also be an important part of the bio since it is this incident that made her so famous for the first time.--atou 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article contains factual content relevant to Virginia Tech Massacre. It's notable enough because almost all Chinese media has cited the report in their headlines and it has caused great concerns in both mainland China and the overseas Chinese communities. However, the format of the article should be revised to comply with a biograhical entry or it should be moved under different category with different title.Sweeper77 03:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Sweeper77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation with an article about Sneed's entire biography, not this one incident. All this incident amounted to was "a newspaper columnist printed something that later turned out to be incorrect" -- something that happens every day. Her comment was not even libelous since she didn't identify the person she had in mind. --Metropolitan90 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it's not about "a newspaper columnist printed something that later turned out to be incorrect", it's about the false report's impact. Second, if it's not a biography then revised it to a biography, why delete it? Sweeper77 03:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The false report had no "impact". No one will remember it in 20 years, because it means nothing. I personally think even the massacre itself should have had a passing comment, but given peoples need to over emphasize we have to put our foot down somewhere. What next? Are we going to have two pages dedicated to the kid who had a bad feeling about going to school that day? --Jimmi Hugh 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - what you think about Don Imus's joke? Frankly, you have no sense about history at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeww (talk • contribs) — Georgeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      - That's a non-sequitur. Don Imus has nothing to do with this argument. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh thankgod, i thought i was losing it, i couldn't work out what his comments had todo with this either --Jimmi Hugh 05:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't remember does not mean others don't. As mentioned in the article, the report went quickly into mainstream Chinese media and for an entire day (it was daytime in China) everyone was talking about how a F1 student had killed 32 Americans. And later the Chinese government had to step out to clarify the false report. You think nobody will remember it? Maybe you don't care because you are not a Chinese, but since when wiki becomes a US-based project? Sweeper77 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please clarify? Are you trying to insinuate i am taling about the massacre? Please notice we are not discussign the deletion of that page. --Jimmi Hugh 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In 20 years, I bet no one will remember half of the wikipedia.--atou 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Allow me to rephrease. In 20 years no one will remember this as more than a single fact in a sometimes remembered event. --Jimmi Hugh 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Allow me to rephrase. Do you think the stem cell scandal should be included in wiki?Hwang_Woo-suk These two case are similar to each other. A jounalist cooked up a story and made its way to national/global media and a scientist faked his result and reported to Science. If you think this case is not worth it, please recommend the deletion of the other article as well. No double standard please. Oldmonster 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I aplogize but i do not know that particular event. But given your wording i advise you read the breakfast discussion near the end of this discussion. If you are implying this stem cell incident was an event in its own right then of course it deservesa n article. This disucssion is about an article that only caused concern because of the bigger picture, and should therefore be merged. --Jimmi Hugh 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The article has been completely revised since my earlier recommendation so my objections no longer stand. --Metropolitan90 01:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non notable. I would also like to say i am disapointed that all the keep arguments are nonsensical rubbish. --Jimmi Hugh 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really suspect you have an conficted interest here. You started using personal attack in discussion. What point you want to make? Only your point is not "rubbish"? Come on, you may wear the Emperor's new clothes. Oldmonster 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from verbal attack. Being notable or not is not determined by your judgment. If a large group of people have a strong feeling toward something, it is notable and worth being as an entry in Wikipedia.Dongdongdog 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a verbal attack. Simply an obvious note to help the admin who looks it over realise peoples keep comments have nothing todo with the situation and are not in the aid of wikipedia. It is as if the whole group believes they have to proof their morality by forcing us to keep this waste of space article knowing that they care not for people. --Jimmi Hugh 05:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend:
- (a)merge properly sourced info concerning her reporting and the reactions to it into appropriate sections of the main Virginia Tech massacre article itself, where it has relevance and can be given in the proper context. While it is valid to canvass media coverage and associated topics at the main article, having this specific incident documented separately like this -in either Ms. Sneed's biog (if kept) or some other separate article devoted to it- has the appearance, and not only the appearance, of consituting a POV/Content fork or even personal attack. Particularly so in the absence of any other view or information. Not all of the current material needs to be integrated into the main VT shootings article, only enough to document the sequence of events and the main reactions to the initial identification of the suspect.
- (b)delete the separate fork, Michael Sneed's rumor, per reasons given in (a).
- (c)weak keep for the Michael Sneed biog article itself, if the subject's claim to notability in her own right can be established, and only if it is made into a more balanced biographical entry covering more than just this one event. The material on her report definitely needs to be pared down significantly, and accompanied by other details of career etc. I've not looked very intensively but I'm presently unable to locate any other specific biographical or career history data sources; if such cannot readily be found then that would indicate to me that an article on Ms. Sneed may not be warranted in any case.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Most of the sources here are just news articles based on Sneed's report, not about the effects of Sneed's report. The only article about the effects of Sneed's report is from James Fallows, but one journalist's comment is not enough to base an article upon. This article seems to exist as "retribution" for Sneed's report, the earlier 2 unsigned "keep" comments seem to confirm that, along with statements like Her story was widely discussed and deemed irresponsible in many overseas Chinese forums. The fact that Michael Sneed and Michael Sneed's rumor are nearly identical is also suspect. And what exactly is the effect of this incorrect story? Chinese people felt a little uncomfortable for a few hours ? Reality check: 32 people are dead - let's not use Wikipedia to make this Sneed issue bigger than it really is. Masaruemoto 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is no requirement in Wikipedia that an article on a news report should be about the "effect" of the report, otherwise, it's not worth being here. Dongdongdog 06:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment; Tell that to all the sockpuppets, I mean people, who want to keep this article because they say it is about the "effect" of the news report. And if this article isn't about the effect, but the actual news report itself, then it shouldn't be here either. This is an encyclopedia, not a news archive. Wikinews is for news. Masaruemoto 05:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident shows the unethical nature and lack of integraty of Ms. Sneed. As a reporter, the most important thing is to report facts, not making up stories. Once the reports turned out false, instead of giving an explanation and apologize, she erased all the traces and pretend nothing happened. We don't need this kind of character in the news business and the public deserves to know what kind of person and reporter she is. Burgen 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)burgen 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Burgen 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Burgen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wikipedia is not a place to make lists of dodgy reporters, if we did we would make comments on all reporters. Please learn what wikipedia is about before making comments on what should stay on wikipedia. She is just like all other reporters and you do more damage by trying to make a big deal out of it. --Jimmi Hugh 04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is not about damaging someone or a "retribution", as Masaruemoto suggested above. It is about recording an incident that generated global effects, cited by innumerable news agencies and newspapers around the world, on the first day of this week. I do not know why this deserves a deletion. If you would like to see a balanced bio, you can certainly make it one. If you want to make it look like an article about an event, you can also work on it or merge it with the aforementioned "rumor" page. Although this does look like imbalanced now, I don't think we have to delete every imperfect or not balanced article on this wiki. We should work on it to make it better, or add a tag to point it out.--atou 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its deletion has nothing todo with balance and perfection. THe article could be a featured one and it would still be deleted. What matters he is that the article is non-notable. It is a single fact from a larger case. Please try to argue within the scope of the article and not the major related event, it is for that very reason taht this should be put in the main event article. --Jimmi Hugh 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you are making the distinction very subtle and difficult. How can we determine the notability of an event, if this event does look notable, but it is related to a bigger event? True, "a reporter making false report" is not a big deal, but I would argue that "33 people got killed" is not a big deal either if that happened in Iraq today and triggered by another bomb, at least nobody will care to write a wikipage on that. I would suggest the notability of an event should solely be decided upon its echo in the world and its media coverage. And this one, "the suspect is a Chinese" does receive substantial amount and thus is very notable.--atou 04:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can not find any suitable item from the official reasons for deletion list, can you??? I think Masaruemoto, and those who said this page was just a retaliation -- all of you should ask why this journalist and this newspaper rushed like that to be the first reporter of the identity of the shooter even though it was clear in their mind that what they were gonna report had not been confirmed? Indeed, compared with the 32+1 lives lost, this short-lasting rumor does not seem to be that tragic. But, we are not spending all our time mourning, are we??? What is more significant for us is to figure out an effective way to prevent all the bad things from happening again-- this certainly includes falsified news reports and possible retaliations on Asian people, in addition to cruel mass shootings. Don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.145.124 (talk)
- I aplogise but i could not make out most of your nonsensical argument. Like all others you seem to think the deletion policy cares about whether or not the paper should have posted this issue. The content does not really matter, what matters is that as a single article the is non-notable. -Jimmi Hugh 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may be perfectly frank and honest, no, I actually disagree with you, and I think with good reason: with apologies to the United States Postal Service and its employees for the usage of the term, Wikipedia is not here to figure out how to keep people from "going postal". We are an encyclopedia, not a psychoanalytical think tank or a research group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is one link showing the adverse effects the falsified report from Michael Sneed: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818566/posts?q=1&;page=56#56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapt (talk • contribs) — Aapt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Holy freaking jesus.. i pray an administrator would delete this before i die... get this through your minds people... the only thing we are discussing is whether this article as a single topic is notable... no it is not, clearly it is nothing more than a sidenote in the main topic of the massacre. --Jimmi Hugh 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jesus has nothing to do with this. Sneed has.
- I apologize to Jimmy for not having made it clearer so that everyone even including you can understand. Here's my thought regarding the notability of this issue (sorry if it is still "nonsensical" to you): if this issue were not notable, Ms. Sneed and the Sun-times would not have done it.
  - Of course you have opened my eyes... well of i go to make an article about my breakfast. Because of course, if it was not notable, then i probably wouldn't have had breakfast this morning. --Jimmi Hugh 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - go ahead with your breakfast. I would like to read it.
      - Thankyou for this... at least now the admin who reads this will know to ignore your comments given you actually believe an article about my beeakfast is good use of wikipedia bandwidth and storage. --Jimmi Hugh 05:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - yeah, i would like to see you breakfast report being quoted by Foxnews and international media-- en, probably you would be an American Idol by then. Good luck
      - Please don't insult me with ideas of becoming an idol of that country... no thankyou. Also read my above comment it relates to you also, obviously your comments are meaningless to the conversation given you really don't care about the cleaning up of wikipedia. --Jimmi Hugh 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the jokes. I would say that if Jimmi eats his breakfast, then its not notable enough. However if he reported on Chicago Sun-Times that he eats a Chinese (or got eaten by a Chinese), and made the 1.3 billion Chinese so unnerved, and is cited by every newspaper in every language tomorrow, then it is definitely notable, and I will write a wikipage about it. I promise.--atou 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahh once again you miss the point. You see it would not unnerve the chinese unless there was a larger related topic. In that case the mention of my breakfast would appear on the larger topic, not on its own page. --Jimmi Hugh 05:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it's worth, I think the ardent keep !votes we're seeing are more in light of the shooting on Monday, and a side effect of emotions running a little high. Can we please, please try and remember that, despite how horrible this was, we need to be objective here? Yes, it's horrible that 32 college students got killed because one went off the deep end, but we can't ignore all rules just because of that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to either the incident itself or to the Chicago Sun-Times article - but I'm leaning towards inclusion for the Times. Yes, the reporter was a schmuck for doing this, but schmuckery doesn't necessarily make somebody notable - just makes 'em a schmuck. It's worth noting, but not by itself in a named article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of changes pointed out by User:Uncle G, I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep and Clean up. I question the notability of the subject per se, but it appears to be something that, given time, will fork out into its own anyhow - so we can safely stubify it for now and revisit it at a later time, I think. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vote Changed. I changed it to delete, but gave my commentary under the first section break. Uncle G does raise a good point, but Yechiel does raise one that, in the end, trumps that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected my attribution link for the paper in question. Time to go to bed. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with Title Changed. I suggest to change to the title to "Michael Sneed Incident"
Keep All these debates and replies show us how important and interesting this article is. And this is exactly why Wiki and all new medias will win the viewers over the traditional medias. --Jim
- I think an article on goggiliwoggilydoodar would be interesting and so do a hundred+ people i know... that does not mean it deserves a place on wikipedia. Please read policy before posting people. --Jimmi Hugh 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with Title Changed. I second this -- change title to "Michael Sneed Incident". I believe this is an important incident of fake news. This might get into textbook of journalism as a classic case. bluegene_ca 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And on that day, when the world really has become as pathetic and needy as possible, and you all believe more in the rights of yourselfs than your countries... i promise i will take a gun to far more than 32 meaningless americans. --Jimmi Hugh 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all J.H.s over this page, I have to ask whether there is a conflict of interest involved. I believe once you made your point clear, you can move on, working on something important and constructive, such as, donate your time, money to support relatives of the 32 victims, to support a better safety system on campus. IMHO, you DO NOT have to jump up and down everywhere to make yourself visible. peace out bluegene_ca 06:24, 19 April 2007
    - In what way would me giving my money upto their familys by constructive? Do they suddenly not have money? This is exaclty the kind of attitude that is making me want to post more. You are all so PC now you actually beleive what yo uare saying. I continue to post when a comment makes a unique view point, and i am totally within my rights to question them and help the thinking process. The whole point of this is to improve wikipedia, and while people keep posting nonsensical arguments as to why the article should be kept, i hope to have the energy to discuss with them my own views. --Jimmi Hugh 06:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, unnotable minor incident. This entire article seriously violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight in dissecting every iota of change to the Sun-Times website without really underlining whether that's important. I've added a sourced paragraph to Chicago Sun-Times (after an anon kept adding a badly-formatted and unsourced bit about it), I really don't see why any more is necessary. Certainly a bio of Michael Sneed would violate WP:BLP if this were more than a tiny fraction of it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after rename and massive trim and reorg. I feel somehow this was the wrong way to handle this procedurally (changing horses mid-AFD), but the end result is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really, a bad reporter is not worthy of his own article, esp. when it's almost a duplicate of the Michael Sneed Incident. I said that some of the relevant info from the Michael Sneed Incident should be included in the Virginia Tech Massacre, But that's it. 10 years from now this woman will not be very notable. Radio-x 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should somehow have a criteria for notability. 10 years is definitely not a line, since after 10 years, most events recorded on this wiki will not be remembered. Just go out and check how many protests and demonstrations and unimportant elections are there, not to mention that probably none of those unimportant things got the media citation as much as this one. Should we delete all of them? Let's face the fact that this is notable just because so many people know it and is affected by it. Solely the fact that so many different people support the notability of this is, in my opinion, a sufficient proof that this is notable.--atou 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it with Michael Sneed Incident This is an historic incident reflecting the importance of integrity for news report. The tragedy itself requires deep reflection for human being, the behaviors of unfaithful news reporting require too. Is anything wrong acceptable just because some people are doing it on a daily basis? This incident should become another milestone in the history of journalism. Also I strongly agree with that this article be included in the Virginia Tech Massacre.Zhjlu 06:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was so close to resisting the urge to post again.. i really just want to walk away... but creating a third article when people have no even finished discussing the two already existing seems to be rather foolish given that they might make you delete it if deletion is decided. Can we not just wait until outcome is decided and not go making new pages based upon our own opinions? --Jimmi Hugh 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a revised title or content. The author of this item is required to keep neutral, as well as the rulers of the wiki. The truth is that, as one of teen millions of Chinese overseas, Michael Sneed's misleading rumor, which was widely broadcast by major news agencies, greatly affected the life of us. Of course, non Chinese overseas cannot feel that. Thus, to prevent such an incident from happening, to keep the neutrality of wiki, this item need revision but not deletion. Lemann — Lemann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. This is a footnote to the real story and is of little lasting interest. BTLizard 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: The current article is not too long and this information could, and should, be in the main article. I would say this for most of the articles spun off the main Virginia Tech massacre article. --AEMoreira042281 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfect case of media being irresponsible and making up stories instead of reporting facts. It could be compared to the stem cell scandal by disgraced South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk. Even worse, after the error had been identified, a coverup scheme instead of sincere apology was underway. Therefore, this case is notebaly significant and deserves its place in wiki. Oldmonster 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— Oldmonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I have renamed this article to a title that is more appropriate for a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout of Virginia Tech massacre#Inaccurate media reports. Uncle G 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; with the renaming and redirection of the article, some of my initial misgivings have been alleviated. However, I still see the article as a violation of WP:POINT and WP:POV. This is only serving to allow "injured" individuals to vent their anger at Sneed and the Chicago Sun-Times early reporting of the alleged identity of the gunman. I'll preface the remainder of my comments by saying that I am a journalist -- I am a news producer for a television station in Atlanta. In a breaking news situation, it is not unusual for multiple erroneous reports are made. Sources provide leads that do not pan out, investigative directions turn out to be dead ends, sources or interview subjects provide false leads or outright lies. Many news organizations, in an effort to be "first" may run those dead end stories.

Because of the instant-information news environment we live in today, thanks to news on the web and 24 hour (or at least 18 hour) a day live television news, those errors are more apparent than otherwise. I, and every other journalist out there, is likely equally guilty at some point in the past, especially in a breaking news situation. In those cases, the stories are refiled, changed, and the more correct information adopted as it is made available. As opposed to the Quixotic crusading against Sneed and her paper, I would suggest a more jaundiced eye be turned in that direction. This is but a simple mistake in the annals of journalism. It is not, as some here would have everyone believe, the discovery of a Watergate-sized cover-up of monumental proportions.

Most of us, as journalists, have gone through similar misreportings in the past. We have, in turn, corrected those mistakes and moved on. This is not, as many here would have you believe, the deliberate smearing or stereotyping of a person or people or group of people. The emotional outrage over this is far more than it should be. And it is certainly not a measure of tossing out the Wikipedia rules to assuage the supposed hurt feelings of the Chinese people. As I mentioned last night, there are plenty of places on the internet for the discussion and exposition of the supposed wrongs of journalists' activities in this affair. Wikipedia is not the place for that. And if you cannot see that, I would strongly suggest a reexamination of Wikipedia's goal and purpose. All of this forces me to reaffirm my support for the deletion of this article. --Mhking 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep I think there is something wrong in your logic. First, how can you justify other's mistake by your own mistake? Second, if errors of journalists are allowable as long as there are covered up later, why do we need the journalists? You can just sit at home and make up all kinds of guessing and put that in the media. One of the apparent mistakes in Sneed's report is that she used a confirmative tone, instead of adding words like "perhaps", "maybe", which misled the public.
  - To Mhking Keep Now we knew what's the real reason from you, not these excuses you claimed before. Should I say you have no credibility? What you think about Don Imus? You probably thought he should not get fired as well. georgeww 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is your second unrelated reference to Don Imus... please don't question our knowledge if you know only this one fact. Mhking continues to have credibility... and he speaks the truth in thae fact that all journalists make mistakes and sometimes print false claims. The fact of the matter is we are not here to discuss the morality or our opinion on whether they should have to say sorry or if it was wrong. We are here only to decide whether this small event deserves it's own article on wikipedia. --Jimmi Hugh 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a hopelessly POV essay about one of the many inaccuracies in the initial coverage of a major news event, and is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia itself named an innocent person as the shooter in the main article until all traces of the name were removed from the article and the talk page by a high level admin with "oversight" authority; should we have an article about that? Or an article about how the press stories said that the shooter had been looking for his girlfriend at Norris? Or the refuted claim that Emily Hirsch had been his girlfriend? Or the false report that two shooters were in custody? Or the false report that the shooter of the first two people had left the university campus? Or an article about the false report that after the shootings at Norris only one person was dead? 90% of initial reports in a major event are just plain wrong. Anyone so curious about the evolution of a story can look at the edit history and talk page of the main article. Edison 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be accurate is one of basic professional requirements for journalists. How can you justify other's mistake by your own mistakes?
MOVE to Michael Sneed, this is notable to him, or the paper. Epson291 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We just moved it from Michael Sneed. There's good reasoning, if you ask me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There were plenty of inaccurate reports and speculation when the tragedy first occurred. At best, this merits one or two sentences at Virginia Tech massacre. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the rumor was widely reported and notable. It has much higher impact than say Essjay controversy and Seigenthaler controversy. On the day of the shooting, the public was anxious to know the gunner's identity and Michael Sneed/Chicago Sun-Times apparently rushed to release the "exclusive" information without proper verification. This constitutes a serious violation of journalism standards. This rumour incident is now the subject of multiple sources such as [10], indicating its significance. --Vsion 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Why delete? Can't we tell the truth? — Cynosurexy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Of course we can... we can all tell as much sourced truth as we like... in the main article. --Jimmi Hugh 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I love seeing useless articles deleted, but IMO, this should definitely stay. Jauerback 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After rereading this article, and other comments, I've changed my mind. This is too focused on one incident of a much bigger event. This doesn't deserve it's own article. Jauerback 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rename to Michael Sneed Incident~~ The current title is far too broad and biased which makes it impossible to be an accurate report or a NPOV one. I doubt any publication by human beings can cover all news accuracies related to any event at any time. The title should be more neutral and more accurate itself. "Michael Sneed Incident" is a good one.--atou 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't say keep a second time... Also note that the Michael Sneed Incident has already been redirected here, that argument is old. Please replace your vote with "Comment" --Jimmi Hugh 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As indicated at the beginning, this is not a majority voting system. Instead, it is a borad to express everyone's idea regarding this issue. Jimmi, you have said more than enough for your share, why not move on to something more meaningful? You are not giving any new reason for deleting other than "notability" issue. Can use give me any reason that Hwang Woo-suk staying here while this topic to be deleted based on "notability"? Oldmonster 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary: "Michael Sneed Incident" is a very bad one. It is not in accordance with our policies to name articles on events after a specific person when we have zero sources that do so. Please read our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Uncle G 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inaccurate media reporting about the massacre has been significant, and I'm sure even more will surface in the days to come. The article on the massacre itself and the article on the killer himself are already pretty large for this article to be merged. So let's keep this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into main article. Despite the fact that Jimmi Hugh seems to be dominating this debate, the incident is notable enough for mention, but probably not for an entire article; moreover, it would probably receive more viewing as part of the main article. Realkyhick 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move* to a section under Michael Sneed, currently that page has been mistakenly redirect to Chicago Sun-Times Cengao 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have every reason to keep this post, because it's a fact. We don't need to talk about the behavior of Mrs. Sneed, however, this post can be a learning material for the future journalist/editors.

Keep. The reason Mhking mentioned above does't stand any more after all the changes and merges. And Mhking has changed his excuse to another one. Please remove from "Articles for deletion" category. Thanks! george 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— georgeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - inaccurate media reports are standard for any disastrous event. And the focus on one specifc incident, although currently being hilighted, is still a current news event suitable for Wikinews rather than an encyclopedia article. At best, this is a footnote in the article about the Virginia Tech murders. - Whpq 17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is recentism. It would be OK at Wikinews. The test "will anyone be interested in this ten years from now?" is a pretty good rule of thumb for an encyclopedia. --Trovatore 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will be interested in this ten years from now. --Neo-Jay 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Michael Sneed or Chicago Sun-Times. If it's notable, it's a POV-fork, and if it's not notable, it doesn't belong. THF 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. This article is only a couple fairly brief paras longer than what's currently in the main Virginia Tech massacre article, and thus could be merged without violating WP:SPACE (unlike, in my opinion, the other main branchings off from that article such as the timeline & victims list). --Yksin 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - why in all the heavens are we writing articles about one reporter making an error, however bad, when it's such a small part of the overall situation? This is hardly a bump on the road of the media storm that's surrounding this situation, and should be nothing more than a mention in the main article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Virginia Tech Massacre; include it in a subsection about media reportage of the incident. Alcarillo 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting, notable artcile, the main article will become very very very long in the end, so this is a very good idea. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Virginia Tech massacre Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misinformation is very common in breaking news stories. I really do not see why this instance deserves its own article. The information in the main article on the massacre is more than enough.--FreeKresge 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I do not think the media coverage issues should be part of the main article on the massacre. They should be kept substantially seperate. This article about the mistake identities and blog reports doesnt have to stand alone but media coverage issues like this are VERY IMPORTANT and I think should be viewed seperate from the killings themselves. Chris B Critter 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) — Chris B Critter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This isn't just about the 24-yr-old Chinese man claim I posted another point about the inaccurate media report of Cho "Railing Against Christianity" my point was immediately deleted by someone attempting to shorten the massacre artile and I've taken a measure to help organize and tidy up the article a bit. I suspect that further valid points about media inaccuracies have benn unreasonably deleted as well. Also, I'm not seeing much activity here on this page today and I wonder if this poll should be taken again for that reason. Finally, if this article must be deleted, then the information and points should be placed back on the VT massacre article Youngidealist 09:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The article contains factual content relevant to the massacre. --Effer^AKS 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingboyk.--cj | talk 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

Keep but Expand into a general article on the media coverage. That way NPOV is satisfied because the article would cover more than just one, controversial aspect. Plus we're already seeing questions being raised over the continued broadcast of the manifesto (Anderson Cooper was nailed to the wall about it last night by an FBI profiler who says it'll inspire more killings). Making reference to errors in reporting are fine, but it's only one part of a bigger picture, which in my opinion would make for a stronger, more interesting article, rather than pointing fingers at two (actually, now, three) people. 23skidoo 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is no reason why there should be an article about this. It is insignificant and recentism. Not only that, but a much larger event, which had numerous, numerous, erroneous media reports was the September 11, 2001 attacks and there's no mention of reporting mistakes in that article, let alone a separate article about it. This is completely POV and does not deserve its own article. --myselfalso 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above; no reason for a separate article here. -Phoenix 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't read much of the article, but what the ... is the point of it? The only encyclopedic concern is what happened. Nobody will care in ten years what people thought happened but didn't happen. Even such a famous gaffe as "Dewey defeats Truman" is not really worth much in the grand scheme of history. YechielMan 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In reflection, too, you think about it, and every such "nasty event" - Columbine, Ruby Ridge, Waco, 9/11, you name it - had its inaccurate press. Best example was the one you gave - Dewey Defeats Truman. It's one of the most famous. But all things considered, it is little more than interesting, and while many things here on Wikipedia hold interest to many people, they are not merely "interesting". On those grounds, I am altering my vote to a delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recentism is a very good description for this article. Wayne Chiang is going through AfD right now too. Anything that is truly useful in this article can be in the article about the event itself. It is ancillary to a wikipedia; we are not wikinews. The media made a mistake trying to report an event with imporper information. Again, we're not wikinews. This could be part of a much larger article about historical impact of the media errors on the major events, but nah. Kevin_b_er 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until passions subside. I think we will eventually end up with a separate article on Sneed. Major media errors that are internationally noticed are notable.DGG 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Charlene, Masaruemoto, Dhartung and Kevin_b_er. Article's interest is due to recentism. Five or ten years from now, the fact that a reporter got it wrong will merit no more than a sentence or two in the main article. It may be news, but it's just not encyclopedic. Pete.Hurd 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now ... revisit the issue in 6 months. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it and add more facts about the incident People here keep saying that it is not a big deal seeing untrue news reports. However, can you come up with a similar event in the history such that the false report is broadcasted wordwide in many mainstream meadia and finaly a government has to stand out and say something about it? This article should emphsize the notorious effects caused by the false report as well as how the society respond to it. The fact that there are intense debates on wikipedia is worth being included in this article. The reason that some people cannot understand the significance of this incident is that, as the majority in the society, they do not feel the pressures imposing on minority. Shoudn't wikipedia provide such an opportunity for the minority that their voices are heard?Zhjlu 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)— Zhjlu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment: Governments take umbrage at inaccurate media reports all the time (eg this false report in a Canadian newspaper, picked up on by other agencies, which drew protests from the Iranian govt). Not to mention all the times they complain about reports which have more than a grain of truth to them. The PRC govt is no exception. The essential facts of this incident can be, and are, documented in the main VT shootings article; they are not being discarded or minimised.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for giving the Canadian incident as an example. It is interesting to compare these two incidents. In the Canadian incident, the false report harms the reputation of A government while in the Michael Sneed incident, a whole group of human being feel being hurt. It appears that the protests from PRC govenment have nothing to do with its own reputation. In terms of the scopes, the massive media coverage and the assocation with a cold-blooded massacre make the Michael Sneed incident much more far-reaching. I think this incident shares some similaity with the "Wen Ho Lee" incident [11]. As a beginner wikipedian, I don't understand why there can be a wiki article about "Wen Ho Lee" while some people here don't allow an article about the Michael Sneed incident. Zhjlu 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but give it a section on the main VA tech shooting page. Mayorcheese 07:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into main VA Tech massacre article - clearly notable incident(s) in view of the Chinese reactions and subsequent media coverage of the outrage. Wikipedia is there for China as much as it is there for the rest of the world. AvB ÷ talk 12:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced info not yet mentioned (if any) into the main VT shootings article, now that the focus has (rightly) been taken off Michael Sneed herself. This does not lose the information which others here are keen to retain, but actually places it where it is most relevant and appears in the proper context. There need be no concerns about bloating the main article, since it would take no more than about two paras to describe the incident in sufficient detail. Maintaining this as a separate article which delves into the minutiae is disproportionate. Alternatively, if there is sufficient material, then the proposal by 23skidoo above is a reasonable approach, namely to break out an article on the broader media coverage, handling and responses of the shootings (and not just this single aspect). But an article consisting only of this one aspect is not sustainable or warranted.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe add a paragraph on the Journalism_scandals page, but this act by a negligent journalist does not deserve an article.
- Comment This is a perfect example showing how bad news report was created, which was tempted to rush out in the first time at an urgent event at the expense of journalism standard. Most people here are non-Chinese and don't understand the feeling of the being falsely accused at the tragedy by an inaccurate news report referenced by many world-class media outlets in the shortest time around the globe. This article is worth being expended to fully cover the whole event of rumor spreading, of course, in accordance of Wiki's standards. And it may be of interest to people in journalism as well to see how to balance news quality and urgency at a critical event as VT Massacre. Wikipedia is for the whole human being. Incapable of fully comprehending the significance to a group of population at a particular event by a group of administrators doesn't necessarily mean the event is not worth being recorded by the greatest encyclopedia on the earth. Also, the principle of wikipedia allows people to participate during the forming of consensus. Now there is heated discussion going on. Deleting this article now will violate this principle. Wikipedia is maintained to its highest standard possible by administrators. When deleting an article, please think from the perspective of wiki's potential audience, the whole human being, not from your own preference in your own culture. Please refrain from cultural hegemony. Dongdongdog 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)— Dongdongdog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (indented to comment, user already !voted) Rockpocket 01:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wayne Chiang and VA Tech massacre. Chiang's only claim to fame is being mistaken for the shooter, so anything about him here should be in his article. The Chinese reaction to the false ID of the shooter's nationality is notable enough to include in the VA Tech massacre article. Djcastel 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about Chiang personally, but about a significant news coverage incident which hurts not only a sizable group of people, but also the objectivity and reputation of news media of the United States in front of the whole world, and about the individual, Michael Sneed, who plays the role of initiator of this event.--Ww2007april 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When there is such confusion, and such a rush to get out news stories, it is totally normal that there may be investigative and reporting errors. The fact that they appear to have been perpetuated by other sources is also symptomatic of the pressure journalists are under. I don't feel the inaccuracies make for a notable subject, but may be worth a mention in the main article, as the incident will not pass the "10 year test". Once the pandemonium and outrage have subsided, hindsight will bring the Virginia Tech massacre article and related series back into objective encyclopaedic editing, which is clearly lacking at this point in time. Ohconfucius 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Talking about objectivity, how objective is it -- attempting to totally erase or minimize much as possible the footprint of one influential event? Enlighten me, please. Ww2007april 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I fail to see how deletion of this article would in any way whatsoever "totally erase or minimize much as possible the footprint of one influential event". Forget not, the Virginia Tech massacre is "the event". This, by contrast, is a non-event which did not cause a diplomatic incident - it provoked nothing but a mild rebuke of sloppy journalism from the Chinese authorities, and is just a "smudge" worthy of no more than a sentence in the article of the massacre. Ohconfucius 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. The Michael Sneed Incident is significant as being the very starting point of a wave of inaccurate reporting in Fox news and other news outlets. Pressure alone does not exempt journalists from professional standards. The fact CNN and many other major news outlets were fairly cautious as not to follow Michael Sneed's lead, did demonstrate a stronger sense of social responsibility. We need to keep in mind that in today's world, information flow through mass media are not merely words and pics, it changes people's lives. And inaccurate reporting, whether deliberated or not intended, could induce racial hatred, not one person, but a whole group of human beings' career, living, even their very lives, could be threatened. The efforts of some delete voters here could be very well intentioned, as to minimize the social impact of this particular incident, which might serve to reduce the racial discrimination flavor from the context of this particular incident. There's much debate within Asian community in face of visible and not so visible racial backlash caused by the VT tragedy. Is it wise to draw more attention during the time when the cherished "model minority" status is already half lost?

But the truth of the matter is: one shall not duck from reality. And to faithfully keep a factual record of what had happened as a significant news event, is the very lesat we should do. --Ww2007april 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a POV fork of the media response in the main article, placing undue weight on one event in the massacre. UnfriendlyFire 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are always inaccurate media reports in the aftermath of a major news story. Why is this one so special? After Columbine, some journalists said there was a third or fourth gunman. After 9/11, there were false reports that Camp David was hit and that bombs had been planted in buildings near the WTC site. Whatever its title, this article amounts to soapboxing on an argument that boils down to "those evil journalists are a bunch of liars". Journalists make mistakes. All people make mistakes. To those who !vote "keep", ask yourself: Will we still be talking about this a year from now? Eight years after Columbine, are we still bemoaning those evil journalists who reported there was a third or fourth attacker? szyslak (t, c) 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect it's worth mentioning that there were a few innacuracies, but only very briefly in the main article; most of the info should not be merged in but istead deleted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge - There is absolutely no reason that this should be an article. Completely fails notablility guidelines. PaddyM 00:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn recentism. Already covered sufficiently in the main VT incident article. Rockpocket 01:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is ridiculous, and almost offensive, that people are more concerned over a journalistic slip-up, the threat of an anti-Asian pogrom (five days and counting...) and identity politics than the massacre itself. By all means include it in the main article and on Sheed's own article, but this slip-up isn't newsworthy. Kransky 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. This a is topic inseparable from the Virginia Tech massacre, so the fact that it has been separated out anyway strains my Wikicredulity. There seems to be a significant tendency amongst some Wikipedians to want to fragment stories when they don't think their "angles" are being satisfactorily covered in the main article, rather than bothering to gain a change the editorial consensus on the main article's talk page. I think that is what we're seeing here. --Dynaflow 06:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relocate - most of this material would fit well in articles on Wayne Chiang or Michael Sneed. What doesn't fit in either of these is trivial and can be removed entirely. Rklawton 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Here is the problem. Someone got me a copy of the World Journal from that day. It apparently received improper info referencing from Chicagotimes and then printed on the frontpage. The newspaper was then circulated to MILLIONS. Wikipedia is at least 1 place to set the facts straight. Benjwong 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a beacon of truth, nor is it a newspaper, chronicle, or blog. It's an encyclopedia. --kingboyk 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre, not enyclopedic and not of long-term interest. --kingboyk 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recentism. Worth no more than a footnote in the Virginia Tech massacre article. Skarioffszky 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above. ugen64 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and on that basis it may require its own article because of the detail of the information. I could see a merger drastically reducing the detail and quality of the content. It is well sourced information and should remain. El hombre de haha 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just being able to source some piece of information allows it to satisfy WP:A, but does not guarantee satisfaction of WP:N, or indeed any other policy or guideline. Losing detail and quality of information is not an argument to avoid deletion. Ohconfucius 09:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the content, what little of NPOV content that can be retrieved, can easily be merged into the main article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough to have own artile. --Tom 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable topic. Wikipedia is not an indisctriminate collection of everytihing. `'mikka 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia allows recording of all kinds of pop songs, TV series, moveis in US, no matter how trashy they are. And now you guys call an incident which impacted more than 1 billion of people as "nonnotable". I can't find another better example of hypocrisy. Come on, what are you afraid of?

Delete Keep - This List of inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre includes a clear list membership criteria per WP:List, is well referenced, and there is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policy standards. You might want to add information from The Impact of Virginia Tech on the News, Broadcasting and Cable. 4/23/07, to the article. -- Jreferee 23:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC). Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre by Michael Sneed has not been reported by any WP:RS, oddly making this well referenced article original research. Without WP:RSs saying "this is what Michael Sneed reported" and "it is inaccurate", the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. Both the article title and lead paragraph are misleading and potentially WP:BLP problematic. -- Jreferee 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires Motorcycle Club[edit]

Non-notable motorcycle club. There is one article in a local weekly paper about the club itself. The other refs only peripherally mention the club in support of an injured rider. Mmoyer 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:31Z
Delete, despite more sources than this type of article usually gets. Realkyhick 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. DBZROCKS 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. --Charitwo 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles author has added some additional references which may influence your opinions. I want to ensure this process is fair, so please review and re-vote. Thanks. Mmoyer 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others. Captain panda 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added two more references, and am currently looking for a linkable copy of an additional news story from the San Jose Mercury News in 2004. Also, the injured person in question is not a random rider but a member of the club, as the various articles state.Wkyirqi 09:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. GreenJoe 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre. This article was begun as a bogus copy & paste "move" of Michael Sneed (AfD discussion) (itself since renamed) when that was nominated for deletion. There is no reason to have two deletion discussions for the same thing. The usual, long-standing, procedure for cases where articles are copied during an AFD discussion is to simply include the copied articles under the same AFD discussion umbrella as the originals. I am therefore speedily closing this discussion. Please contribute to the discussion of the original article, rather than this 11-edit copy. Uncle G 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sneed's rumor[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

article is serving to provide forum-like material in terms of arguing for/against columnist Michael Sneed and Chicago Sun-Times coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre. Violates WP:POINT, WP:N, and arguably other WP guidelines; Delete Mhking 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or merge with the other one. The event is significant enought to have its place in wiki. Ww2007april 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Ww2007april (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. This is just getting ridiculous. Delete (or at least merge into Virginia Tech massacre).

_└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I do not understand why this should be merged into Virginia Tech massacre. This is a social event showing the irresponsibilities of some media.
  - Comment. Because it means nothing. Because it doesn't deserve a full article of its own. It is not notable in the grand scheme as a seperate entitiy. Therefore merging it into the massacre page simply turns it into anothing bit of information about that instead of pretending it is an event in it's own right. --Jimmi Hugh 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep This article is too long to be tucked in the VT Massacre entry.Dongdongdog 06:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article and Michael Sneed contain the similar content. It describes a historical event rather than a bio, so suggest to merge that one into this one. Also the title might need to be changed to conform to wiki rules.--Zhangwl03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above... --Jimmi Hugh 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is a literal description of an event. People writing this article and people reading this article demonstrates this is a notable topic. Dodidwiki 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Dodidwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. I am not sure what counts a personal insult... but i don't think this does, and my apologies if anyone thinks it is... but, are you high? Please don't waste reading space with comment's like this. --Jimmi Hugh 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article devotes an inordinate amount of attention to something which turned out to be "a newspaper columnist printed something that turned out to be incorrect" -- something that happens every day. Sneed didn't even libel anyone with the inaccurate information, given that she didn't identify the person she believed to be a suspect. At most this might be worth devoting one sentence to in Virginia Tech massacre and/or Michael Sneed, not a full article of its own. --Metropolitan90 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the attention and mixed feelings resulted from Michael Sneed's false claim from across the world, the attention to an article like this to clarify the fact is never 'inordinate'. It's very important for people to be able to know the detail of this event from Wikipedia, because such information is not readily available from other sources, for example, a statement from Chicago Sun-Times or Michael Sneed herself. Dodidwiki 03:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— Dodidwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are plenty of blogs, message boards and forums that are deigned as soapboxes. Wikipedia is not one. You want to rail against the Sun-Times and Sneed? That's your business. But not on Wikipedia. --Mhking 04:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact is if the thing is handled properly from the very beginning, this may be just another 'something that happens every day'. But now it's notable event for its own sake, irrelevant of what Sun-Times and Michael Sneed have done. The article here is NOT a request for apology or whatever. Even if that happens, it doesn't void the value of the entry. Any on-going development of this event will be put into the wiki. The article is here to record a history. Dodidwiki 04:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— Dodidwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, the impact of this event is globally, and this rumor was cited all round the world. It's a notable topic and deserves its place. georgeww 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— georgeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete, per my reasoning at the related AfD discussion for Michael Sneed. With reference to an earlier comment here: I would note that while media outlets do indeed print incorrect statements every day, not all of them are picked up on and repeated globally in association with a high-interest event. Agreed that the present treatment of it is way too exhaustive and not in proportion, but I think it warrants more than only a passing mention. The place it needs to be mentioned however is the main VT shootings article itself,which is the proper and most relevant context -and not as a stand-alone fork which could readily be seen as an attack or denigration.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the false report offends too many people, then it would deserve its own article on wikipedia.Dongdongdog 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The details presented are valuable and interesting, and would simply clog up the main article if merged in. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article covers an important incident just happened and the article itself can become an important information source in the future. As we all know facts easily become blurred with time pass by, I strongly recommend keep this article bluegene_ca 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— bluegene_ca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete; Apparently a lot of Chinese people felt uncomfortable the other day, because for a short while they believed that the killer was Chinese. A few hours later they found out he wasn't. And that's it. But some people want to immortalise this minor event with its own article, in order to demonstrate how irresponsible Sneed is. This isn't notable in itself, and it certainly isn't notable in the context of the entire massacre. At best it warrants a sentence in the VT article. Masaruemoto 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Masauruemoto said, it affected a lot of Chinese people. Who might not be as important as American people, but in large enough numbers, they still count.--Isocyanide 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah well nuclear threats during the cold war affected lots of people but we don't have an article on each and every one. You know why? Because people then knew that they were ok. They had no doubts over their morality so they didn't need to prove it by looking like they care on some website. Also they weren't pathetic PC fools who think shows like open all hours made racist jokes because they make mention of black people being black... --Jimmi Hugh 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the articles; the rumor was widely reported and notable. It has much higher impact than say Essjay controversy and Seigenthaler controversy. On the day of the shooting, the public was anxious to know the gunner's identity and Michael Sneed/Chicago Sun-Times apparently rushed to release the "exclusive" information without proper verification. This constitutes a serious violation of journalism standard. This rumour incident is now the subject of several sources such as [12]. --Vsion 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge small portions of relevant information. I think a few paragraphs are adequate. Not a full page of information. Radio-x 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per has proper citations. the_undertow ^talk 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I have argued on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed, this blows the ceiling off of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and would violate WP:BLP if more than a fraction of a proper Sneed biography article. Maybe if there are lawsuits later on this could become notable, but as it is, there simply are very few news articles from reliable sources actually reporting on the false identification as a story. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a minor footnote to the real story. BTLizard 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by AuburnPilot. Daniel Bryant 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Hog[edit]

Neologisms unfortunately require full deletion process, i would advise speedy deletion though --Jimmi Hugh 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Obvious Delete. Too bad we gotta wait this one out since it doesn't meed any speedy deletion criteria. →Ed Gl 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sigh and delete - can't we speedy under patent nonsense? it's only neo if ive heard of it ;) the_undertow ^talk 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually now you mention it, i can't really understand what the article is saying... it makes no sense, almost nonsense actually. --Jimmi Hugh 06:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual internet population (2nd nomination)[edit]

Article is just a table, with less than 20 edits over almost three years. Simply not an article. I read the previous AFD which happened a year ago, and in my opinion it was weak - weak nomination, and weak arguments for keeping the article (and notice how all the keep votes have a little "needs work" or "please expand" thrown on there). If you don't vote delete, at least vote merge to somewhere, because this little blurb of information should not get its own article - there's just not much there, even after about 3 years. →Ed Gl 03:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was never expanded and i don't think it will. Even if it was, i really feel it is a nonsense topic in it's own right. If someone volunteers to actually expand, suggest merge into some Internet related page. --Jimmi Hugh 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet#Language and English on the Internet already cover the topic of languages on the Internet in detail, and this table is unsourced and out-of-date (though a sourced, updated version would be a good addition to the aforementioned topics). Krimpet (talk/review) 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krimpet, there's nothing worth keeping on this page. --Helm.ers 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krimpet. Davewild 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopelessly out of date and limited in notability even when updated. Realkyhick 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii File Codes[edit]

This is not an encyclopedic topic. Lest we forget, Wikipedia is not a repository of every minutae of human existence. Salad Days 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as a WP:HOWTO, or game guide.Dr bab 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra strong delete this is completely nonnotable and wouldn't even be found in a game guide. DBZROCKS 12:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mildly useful, but still, Wikipedia is not a game manual. --Cyrus Andiron 15:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adambro 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many more video-game howtos must we suffer? Realkyhick 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Gnan garra 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Law (book)[edit]

This article has two sources, one which discusses the temr and the author (Cormac Cullinan) but does not explicitly discuss the book, the other does not mention the title at all. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid sub-article of Wild law. This Guardian article discusses the term in dept], this lists off a number of independent reviews and blurbs about the book's importance, this article specifically cites the book as an example of a publication behind the ideas it contains, a university conference was based around it, and on and on and on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, discussing the termis not the same as discussing the book. You know that. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, which is why that was only one aspect of my comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now improved the article with: names of respected scholars and thinkers (three of whom are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles written about them, including a Nobel Peace Laureate) who have written about the book; non-trivial mention in several legal publications and national newspapers; and several major conferences based on the actual book itself with speakers who are members of the British parliament, professors and heads of legal departments at universities, and other distinguished and renowned individuals. Do let me know if you need more independent verification of the noteworthiness of this book and I will provide it. --Lesley Fairbairn 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is needed. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cúchullain ^t/c 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like an advert for the book, which is not what WP is for. That said, it seems notable, but until the "spammy" feeling can be dealt with, I have to go with weak delete. No prejudice to a keep or a recreation if it is cleaned up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too promotional in nature. Realkyhick 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can there be many books upon which conferences and workshops are based for 4 successive years, with the participation of members of Her Majesty’s Government, British university institutions, the UK Environmental Law Association, the Environmental Law Foundation, and the head of the European Environment Agency, to name just a few? This book is the focus of international discussion, is directly referred to in national newspapers, and is affecting legal outcomes. Based on the ideas outlined in the book, a body of legal opinion is proposing what are being called "wild laws", which would speak for birds and animals, and even rivers and nature. One of the first was introduced last September, when a community of about 7,000 people in Pennsylvania, in the US, adopted what is called Tamaqua Borough Sewage Sludge Ordinance, 2006. It was hardly an event to set the world alight, except for two things: it refuses to recognise corporations' rights to apply sewage sludge to land, but it recognises natural communities and ecosystems within the borough as "legal persons" for the purposes of enforcing civil rights. According to Thomas Linzey, the lawyer from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, who helped draft it, this is historic. See the article in The Chronicle Herald (Halifax, Nova Scotia), January, 2007, entitled 'When does a treee have rights?' (which directly refers to Cullinan and his book, Wild Law) about Pennsylvania Borough becoming the “First Municipality in the United States to Recognize the Rights of Nature”. The Chronicle Herald describes it as "one of the most important events of 2006". --Lesley Fairbairn 23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure the author and the idea deserve their own articles, however I'm not convinced about the book having a separate article. Addhoc 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs cleanup, but there are sources establishing notability. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sourcing was Ok from the first, but now it is certainly clear.DGG 04:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - don't understand the rationale for having a sub-article in the context of the main article being a stub. Addhoc 12:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced and there is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policy standards.-- Jreferee 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMania 9[edit]

Wikipedia is not a magic 8-ball. Contested prod. MER-C 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise, an article telling us that this doesn't exist yet. Delete. We are not a crystal ball. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The release of the album won't be for four years. This is crystal ballery. WODUP 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why should we have an article telling us that nothing is known about something? BTLizard 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL DBZROCKS 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not and will not ever understand why some people consider Wikipedia to be a race. If it is, I've yet to get a ribbon. How about we wait, say three years and then make the article once we have actual verifiable information about the artists and songs. --Cyrus Andiron 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a collection of rumours. Adambro 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My crystal ball shows a gloomy future for this article. Realkyhick 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also found DisneyMania 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), DisneyMania 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), DisneyMania 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and DisneyMania 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's even worse. MER-C 10:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably a bit late to add those to this AfD so I've proded them and will keep an eye on them to see if it is contested. If that is the case, I'll start another AfD for those four. Adambro 13:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Marskell 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Micarelli[edit]

Nonsensical Biography. Original put up for Speedy given it makes no reference to achievements and is clearly non-notable. Was asked to move to AFD by admin though --Jimmi Hugh 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject is in the process of beautification would not seem a speedy. No opinion on Afd result.--Dakota 04:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source that I can find about this is the Franciscan Missionary Sisters of the Infant Jesus web page.I'm not sure that it passes the following from WP:N: A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The only source that I can find is not independent of the subject because the source says that the subject founded that source. From the Franciscan Missionary Sisters... web site: Christmas 1879, Barbara was invested with the seraphic habit of St. Francis of Assisi and given the name, Sr. Mary Joseph of the Infant Jesus, thus founding the Institute of the Franciscan Sisters of the Infant Jesus. WODUP 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That process of beatification - not "beautification" :-) - has been going on since 1959 according to the source quoted above. Given the haste with which some canonisations have been put through in recent years I think we can assume that the Church doesn't regard it as a priority. BTLizard 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can have an article when she's officially a saint, but until then she's not quite notable yet. Too bad this might mean we'd get an article on her only in 2010 or later. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:45Z
Weak delete. Not being canonized or even beatified yet doesn't rule out inclusion, I think, but she's a relatively unknown Servant of God. If it's kept (which seems unlikely at the moment) it will need some work to tidy it up and NPOV it — e.g. change "realized" to "became convinced", drop the bit about sisters behaving "uncharitably", and leave out how "wonderfully" she served the people of God. I haven't time at the moment, or I'd work on it. Musical L inguist 17:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Founding an order (instead of simply joining one) seems to be some achievement, so it may be possible that better sources can be found, maybe in print. A Google search also indicates that there is a school and some places named after her and she is the honoray citizen of some place in Italy.[13]. Alternatively mergo into Franciscan Missionary Sisters of the Infant Jesus. --Tikiwont 08:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barbara Micarelli, also known as Mother Mary Joseph, is the foundress of the Franciscan Missionary Sisters and she is notable enough to have famed artist John Giannotti sculpt a statute of her. However, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Core desat 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truong Diep[edit]

Sanitation manager of Midway City, California, popn 15k. A backroom bureaucrat for Westminster, California's council, popn 88k. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless sources supporting notability are provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a bad article, but nobody becomes notable for being a sanitation manager. YechielMan 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save These people may not be notable to you, but they are to the large Vietnamese American population in Orange County, California. I believe Diep is notable for being the youngest elected official in this county - elected at the age of 23. --Aiforce3
Save Correction, the pop of Midway City Sanitary District is nearly 100k.

Please provide evidence from independent sources to support your claims of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite Sanitation and Traffic positions, puleeze!--killing sparrows 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Troung Diep is a Politician that is notable in the Vietnamese community and the asian community in the united states!15:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable. DHN 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, there are only a handful of Vietnamese-Americans who are elected to public office in America: SO NOTABLE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.0.133 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Generally diaspora politicians are notable, but a sanitation manager is really pushing it.Baka man 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, according to the info, looks like the guy is a rising star, I say notable and keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.0.133 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Nguyen[edit]

Member of a school district board. Not notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 00:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Khoi khoi 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Lan Nguyen has been a political figure in California for children of all nationalities, he is the first Vietnamese-American to be selected for this position, in California politics he has made a name for himself for his public service. —The preceding Bnguyen 18:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, GreenJoe 05:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Quoc Nguyen[edit]

Member of a school district board. Advert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this subject is probably too minor. Punkmorten 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to support any form of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. YechielMan 00:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Khoi khoi 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Nguyễn Quốc Lân is a Vietnamese-American that on the scale of California poltics has made name for himself for his public service and is notable to the Vietnamese and Asian community of the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnguyen (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non-notable. DHN 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, GreenJoe 05:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trung Nguyen[edit]

A board member on a school distrcit. Not notable, and reads like spam.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'll stop commenting here, but I agree with all of User:Blnguyen's nominations today about nonnotable school board members. YechielMan 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Khoi khoi 06:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I disagree with BLNGUYEN Asians and Vietnamese that are notable to their communities and in California by performing public service that is an assest to their community and the greater United States.Bnguyen 18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable because he almost became a county supervisor and is still contesting the election results. DHN 18:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But has there been significant press coverage outside of Orange or Los Angeles Counties? A check of Google News does not show anything outside the local papers or TV news. He's not even notable in the state, let alone nationally. DarkAudit 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, BLNGUYEN doesn't know what he is talking about, Trung Nguyen is a well known person in Orange County, CA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.0.133 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Known in one county in one state does not meet notability standards. A board of education election does not meet notability standards for political offices, either. Nor do county offices. DarkAudit 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, GreenJoe 05:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, all of the keep arguments are by the same editor. --Core desat 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tri Ta[edit]

A councillor in Westminster, California, population 88,000. Not notable, and reads like spam.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khoi khoi 06:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save Why not notable? At least he's an elected official whereas Tan D. Nguyen and Hong Tran in which Blnguyen did not nominate for deletion isn't even holding public office.— Preceding unsigned comment added by airforce3 (talk • contribs)
- Note -Author of a series of Vietnamese local councillor articles. This is his subject of editing. Hong Tran ran for Congress and was heavily covered in newspaper articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Haikon 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Tri Ta is an elected official in the state of california that represents his district. He is notable of being an role model to Vietnamese-Americans and asians for his public service18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnguyen (talk • contribs)
- Comment - Does this mean that any council member of any small town passes WP:BIO. I don't think it does. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable outside of Westminster and the Vietnamese-American community. DHN 18:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, If a small town councilor is not notable, according to Blnguyen's standard then why isn't he nominating others like Madison Nguyen for deletion?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy T. Quach[edit]

A councillor in Westminster, California, population 88,000. Not notable, and reads like spam.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khoi khoi 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Quach is not spam, for the Vietnamese Community in the United States not only in westminster. He is a role model and for asian americans and any other minority living in the united states.15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note Author of this page, who ha\sonly created articles on these types of councillors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable outside of Westminster. DHN 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A la Nanita Nana[edit]

Wikipedia is not a lyrics database—arf! 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikisource, it's a source text. MER-C 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or move to WikiSource - See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, #8. --Razor ICE 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — and don't move to WikiSource. This is a blatant copyright violation and they wouldn't want it anyway until its copyright status is determined. Mgm|^(talk) 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adambro 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:22Z

Jan Morgenstern[edit]

Previously determined to be non-notable and deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Morgenstern qwe 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as (possible) repost. So tagged. MER-C 06:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exact repost. We can let this AFD run. Punkmorten 10:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks independent references per WP:MUSIC. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 21:49Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "10 lines of text get you a working spam page, but everything written for you, can be 100% deleted." —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 14:03Z

Achievo Tool Kit[edit]

WP:SPAM, reads like a brochure and it's nn. the_undertow ^talk 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - second person spam. So tagged. MER-C 06:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - yeah, i coulda gone that route, but i figured, man...i could really use some suspense in my life. the_undertow ^talk 08:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — As per WP:SPAM, fails WP:NOTE (Google search returns about 12 results from blogs and forums), and WP:NPOV. --Razor ICE 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Marskell 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeraDisc[edit]

Another case of using a magic 8-ball, which Wikipedia is not, as a basis to write an article. Contested prod. MER-C 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be worth an article when (if) it's developed and comes to market, but this is way premature. BTLizard 09:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wait until verifiable sources are available until creation. Adambro 20:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand This is yet another of those off-the-beaten-path technologies that quite well may end up making an impact on the market (ala VCD). As "teradisk" more than 1000 unique references on google (mostly in Chinese), as "teradisc" over 60,000 unique references, mostly in German and Chinese. It's quite real. Needs an "in development" tag and serious expansion 'though. -- Lostinlodos 08:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TeraDisc capability of storing up to one TeraByte (TB) of data makes this technology very notable. However, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Betting pool. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:26Z

Sports lottery[edit]

First of all, I was the original author of this article. The entry is necessary and quite valid. In fact, the sports lottery entry was a great addition to wikipedia. Sports lottery is a term that is used by a large number of people all across the world.

The fact that it has been nominated for deletion shows the obvious disregard for improving the article. It simply proves that the person who has suggested deletion has been blinded by his own anger and hatred of pointshavers.com. If you look at the history of this article, the general tone of the edits has been opposition to the website pointshavers.com and not the entry itself. It's really a shame that someone would propose to delete an entry that is quite relevant to wikipidia.

Now, I have been very open to improving the article contents. I have, in fact, responded to others who have made suggestions on the content of the article and I will continue to do so. I have run out of time at the moment to comment on the article contents. I will do so shortly.

Article subject is entirely redundant to betting pool, it even says sports lottery is simply another term for football pool which also has its own article. I redirected it, but the original author reverted it, apparently to spam the entirely unnotable pointshavers.com domain which is ludicrously mentioned as an example. That site doesn't even have 300 online mentions of any kind. The author has also claimed "ownership" of the article. The article should be deleted and redirected to the betting pool article. I have already moved the usable text over there. 2005 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems like an issue for WP:AIV rather than AfD. cab 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I asgree with Cab, it is something requrieing AIV. Your redirect was the right action. -- Whpq 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to betting pool and football pool as appropriate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 05:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Heaven[edit]

Company does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. The website is what is a "skin" into the actual poker room, owned by Boss Media. If Boos Media had an article this would have been redirected there, but there currently is no Boss article. There are hundreds of these minor skins around, but currently articles only cover the companies who own the actual cardrooms. Besides that, Poker heaven isn't totally trivial but it is not very unique in and of itself. 2005 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not as familiar with the subject. The article looks somewhat spammy, and it was created by a single-purpose account. YechielMan 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Author I appreciate why you nominated this for deletion but unfortunately don't know enough about Boss to begin an article. I do look up stuff on Wiki and have done for years, but have never been an editor, so wasn't sure where to put up the article for comments before general release.
I saw articles for Poker Stars, Full Tilt and Party Poker/ Gaming and never thought that they were only there because they were networks. Poker Heaven is unique in that it's the only poker room with a TV channel, but I don't know if that's enough to warrant inclusion. If you feel the article is 'spammy' then please let me know what I should change and what other information is required. I tried to copy the format of the other poker ones as best I could. All criticism taken on board and feedback appreciated. StalkerB 13:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed the pokerheaventv link as it redirects to another site. Saying they have a TV channel is, at best, not accurate. Pokerstars, FullTilt and PartyGaming have articles because they qualify for one. They have literally tens of thousands of non-trivial web and media references, and they are stand alone businesses. Pokerheaven is not. It's just a doorway into another business. A skin could gain an article if it did something unique mentioned in a non-trivial way by reliable sources, but we certainly don't want to have 100 articles on each of the individual Boss Media skins, with the same basic redundant information. 2005 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for inclusion have nothing to do with the site being unique or having a "tv channel". The poker room is just a "skin" of Boss Media and has no claims to notability on its own. Rray 17:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Not to be confused with The Sopranos' "Big Pussy's Poker Heaven"). There is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:ab}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-04-24 10:29Z

The dreamer and the sleeper[edit]

Well written but ultimately non-notable band article. The EP release had only a total of 50 copies created and the album has yet to be released. No claims of online fame and only source is the groups own myspace. Also nominating derivitive album articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, it's a nice-looking article, but they simply haven't become notable enough yet. No album, no label, nothing charted — sorry, guys, not yet. Realkyhick 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is their myspace page. That's not good as far as notability is concerned. Maybe in a few years we'll have heard of them but not right now. --Cyrus Andiron 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krustylu studios[edit]

I don't believe this web site meets the notability guidelines at WP:WEB FisherQueen (Talk) 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, no notability per WP:WEB. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither notable or important. --- RockMFR 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Krusty. JuJube 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borders on fancruft, fails WP:WEB. Realkyhick
Delete, selfless plug made by homerofwar07, also user in question has been previously banned, fails WP:WEB. Kampkrusty3796
Leave IT!Please Ignore the member Kampkrusty3796, as he was banned form krustylu studios and trying to get his revenge on the site. I believe The Article should stay, many members of the site love reading the history on it. They like having it on this great site wikipedia. I really don't think it would be notable to mods on this site, I mean think about it when was the last time you actuality looks for a simpsons forum. You guys should be a little more fair, there are thousounds of other people who dont have wikipedia account but browse wikipedia, they like reading the history on the network here at wikipedia instead of trying to find ti on krustylu studios Having ti on wikipedia also allows people to add in anythings I mist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homerofwar2007 (talk • contribs)

Have you read WP:WEB? If there's a way in which this web site meets that standard, please point it out, so that we don't have to delete the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UST Pharmacy Glee Club[edit]

This group appears not to meet the notability standard FisherQueen (Talk) 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a club of a faculty of a university is pretty far down the food chain and needs some good sources to establish notability. There are very few Ghits here and none of sufficient quality. TerriersFan 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, almost appears to be a joke (I know it isn't). Realkyhick 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. ----Polaron | Talk 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Kevin Sterne. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Alastair Cooper. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep per consensus Pea ceNT 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khalida Ghous[edit]

subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, article fails WP:ATT, requests for third-party references and to establish notability have simply been removed from the article without correcting the problem, subject gets less that 200 Ghits after excluding Wikipedia mirrors: Delete. Jefferson Anderson 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a routine CV to me. Anthony Appleyard 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:ATT. Notes and references have been provided. Lady is a renowned scholar from Pakistan. Article is worth including here. DO NOT delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.113.214 (talk • contribs)
From nowhere it looks like a CV. Its a complete article. People concerned may improve the article but it should not be deleted at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.113.214 (talk • contribs) this is the second vote for this IP
Keep She is the author of two published books, which is above the average for university professors; together with her service, for which the university, Henry L. Stimson and SPDC site is a RS, she would appear to be above the line for notability. The Nation link is the proof of her importance and standing in her activism in Pakistan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.113.214 (talk • contribs) this is the third vote for this IP

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 13:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from the information provided she is notable as a public figure, or as an academic administrator. If she has written only two books, she probably would not be notable as a scholar according to WP:PROF, but there is no reason why a professor cannot be notable for activity in public affairs. It seems she is. However, if she is as notable as it seems, there will have been magazine articles, possibly newspaper articles, and other discussions about her and her work. They really must be added, because we cannot tell otherwise. I want to mention that a mere count of English language ghits is not necessarily appropriate. It's more appropriate to examine them and see if any of them are usable references. And the criterion for keeping is not whether an article looks like a CV but whether the subject is notable.

I strongly urge her supporters to first of all get user names for themselves, and then to get some references and put them in. There is no point going to the trouble of writing unreferenced articles.DGG 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely evidence that she is a noted public figure and so meetings WP:BIO and probably WP:PROF Madmedea 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Now I've provided the article with ample important sources and references. We all should just think for moment that what does it mean for a women in Pakistan to reach that position. We should also not go after the internet references as in Pakistan, this phenomenon has not yet flourished to keep everything's record online. You may not find many of the top intellectuals of Pakistan online because of the same reason. I hope now you people will understand and foil the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.113.214 (talk • contribs) Note: 4th !vote by this IP in this AfD
Keep links added by 221.132.113.214 establish notability: eg, as a public intellectual "Pakistan's former foreign secretary Niaz A Niak will head his country's team of intellectuals comprising Gen K M Arif (Retd.), Lt-Gen Nishat Ahmad (Retd), Maj-Gen Ghulam Omar (Retd), former Sindh governor Ashraf Tabani, former secretary finance H U Baig, former law minister Shahida Jamil and Prof Khalida Ghous of the Karachi University.", and mention in prominnt newspaper editorial " in Karachi the non-official Social Policy and Development Centre under Dr. Khalida Ghous now has conducted excellent studies in the social and economic sectors keeping in view the needs of the people". Transcript of her TV interview posted on the President of Pakistan's official website, etc. Pete.Hurd 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin Timeline[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This isn't an encyclopedia article, its a list of non-notable events in an online game. No sources so completely unverifiable, amounts to original research. Original prod notice removed without comment Gwernol 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puffle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Penguin Times Gwernol 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some group's adventures debugging a game. Delete, not notable. Anthony Appleyard 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony semper fictilis 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are there supposed to be timelines on Wikipedia? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason not to have them on Wikipedia, as long as they are properly sourced, are neutrally worded and don't contain original research Gwernol 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source to the aricle ([14]); so now it is sourced. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not a reliable source. Nor does it why the timeline of events in Club Penguin are notable enough to warrant their own article. Gwernol 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn´t it reliable? It is official... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are multiple, non-trivial, independent sources per the notability guidelines. An encyclopedia uses secondary sources: i.e. reporting about a subject not the subject itself. Gwernol 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Sources can be verified. No one is trying. --Defender 911 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I´m glad your username coincides with your actions! ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above, sources can be verified. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because of what is said above. Ratónbat 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Deletion I believe that we should discuss on how to improve this article, rather than whether or not we should delete it. I believe that with a bit of help, Club Penguin Timeline will qualify as a Wikipedia-worth article.--Coin945 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely! Just like Coin945 said, we should intend to improve the article rather than deleting it; for instance, Club Penguin was nominated for deletion but some argued that if it can be improved, then it should be improved, not deleted! Of course, there still remains the problem with the sources, but they can be produced quite easilly; as a matter of fact, I will consider doing it very soon! Finally, as for notability, it was argued that Runescape was a better article and didn´t have a timeline; so... Why should Club Penguin, an article of less quality, have a timeline? Well, my response to this statement is that Club Penguin is a less developed article because than Runescape becuase the game is for little kids who most probably are to small to be interested, and to even be able, to edit Wikipedia; but... This doesn´t mean that the article isn´t notable? If you check the miniclip website, you will see Club Penguin as the #1 game of the top-ten; so, if it beats so many ther games, including Runescape, the it really must be notable... Don´t you think? Also, if for some reason you who support this deletion do it becuase you do not like Club Penguin, then let me tell you that this has got nothing to do, it still is notable even though you do not enjoy it, because others surely do if it´s #1 of the top-ten... So, I believe that Club Penguin should have a time-line because it is notable enough. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I AGREE! Deleting an article doesn't solve problems! It may create problems! --Defender 911 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Let´s just give it some time for improvement instead of throwing it directly to the garbage! ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of discussion on how to improve the article will lead to an article that meets Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we do keep this article, how should we improve it?--Coin945 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To improve it, we should cite sources, first of all. Then we could work on organizing it better. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be original research. The article does not establish the noteability (outside the game) of any of the events listed. Dr bab 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR. The only reference is a blog, that's a good indication that it cannot be verified. --Cyrus Andiron 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve added several sources; they are second party unofficial sources. They are here: Club Penguin Timeline#References/Sources/External links ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ How about actually trying to verify our sources and improving the article? Deleting creates problems! --Defender 911 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to express your opinion once per AfD - even if its relisted. Gwernol 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as my vote is counted. --Defender 911 10:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting an article that does not adhere to Wikipedia's policies, this one for example, does not create any problems. An unsourced and unverified article is not preferrable to no article at all. --Cyrus Andiron 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Wouldn't that mean more work to bring back the article? Improvement is more preferable to deletion. --Defender 911 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any evidence that this article reached, or could reach, our notability criteria, I would agree. But in the month that the article's been around and the days this AfD has been running, not a single independent, non-trivial published source has been suggested for the notability of even one event described in this article. None of the people urging we keep this has been able to show any evidence that this is notable. At some point we have to pull the plug on this as it simply doesn't meet our basic minimum standards for inclusion. Gwernol 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response >:0 No one is payed for this. "Pull the plug"? There is no cost to Wikipedia to keep this article. Why delete it? Improvement is a much better option. And if you do pull the plug, I'll have a surprise waiting. ;) --Defender 911 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Deletion I have added various references to such websites as wordpress so at least it is starting to get referenced.--Coin945 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that wordpress is not a reliable source. Because anyone can write anything on a wordpress blog, it doesn't have the same value and reliability as a published source. Reliable sources include newspapers and books, where there is an editorial selection and verification process Gwernol 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL NOT BACK DOWN! I WILL FIGHT 'TILL THE BITTER AND (hopefully not) BLOODY END! >:(--Defender 911 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. No citations to reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. No citations to reliable, third-party published sources. No real assertion of notability beyond 'its a timeline for an online game', and although it's frowned upon to use such words, it definitly falls into my definition of 'pure fancruft'. DarkSaber2k 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber in British place names[edit]

Pure speculation misleadingly presented as fact, request for reputable sources (indeed any sources) has failed. Delete Flapdragon 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'm not exactly sure about the purpose of the article, but possibly WP:LISTCRUFT, and looks like it fails WP:N. The source seems reliable, however. --RazorICE 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, there simply are no British placenames referring to amber, as far as I can see or the writer of this article can show. The article says (in a weasel-worded way: "may have", "must have been" etc) that there are, but does not produce any sources. It also implies a lot through irrelevant juxtaposition, for example mentioning that "there is" a river called the Amber, in fact a pre-Celtic river name which would hardly come from an English word derived from mediaeval Latin and first recorded in that sense in the seventeenth century! As for all the "Burn..." places, why would they take their name from German Bernstein when the English is "amber" and the corresponding word "burnstone" does not exist? This is not an encyclopaedia article, it's an unsupported piece of original invention. Flapdragon 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange sort of WP:OR article here, I'm not even entirely sure what their point is - but regardless, it is unsourced original research and should be deleted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that I cannot ascertain the point of the article even after reading it a few times is a definite problem. Looks like unsourced OR to me. --Cyrus Andiron 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's original, certainly, but I'm not sure it can be dignified with the name of research! Flapdragon 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Jack Haskins[edit]

Non-notable college football player without sources Thomas.macmillan 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable sportsperson, really, even if it is true. Lankiveil 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Question not what I usually comment on, but I thought that being a starter on a major college football team for two seasons was N? DGG 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a references tag, but notability is established in this article. Scarykitty 04:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try doing a google search for him. Granted, Google does not mean notability, but "Billy Jack Haskins" finds only 473 G hits, quite small for someone playing quarterback at a division I university in the last decade. The article has not reputable sources (nor does it really have a shot at them, by the looks of the google search) and on that note alone should be deleted, or at least made into a 2-3 sentence stub.--Thomas.macmillan 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and can meet Wikipedia article policy standards. "Who can forget the Billy Jack Haskins game at Commonwealth Stadium in 1995 when the Wildcats jumped out to a huge first-half lead only to watch the Vols storm back and pin a 34-31 loss on UK?"-- Jreferee 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was starting QB in Division IA for one year. He never played professionally, or for a collegiate championship, so he's not notable. YechielMan 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasDelete while there are some very forcefully put statements for keeping the article notability hasnt been established from reliable, independent sources. Gnan garra 05:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kaplan[edit]

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Only sources are from show rundowns and other sources within the Howard Stern universe. —Ocatecir ^Talk 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being a producer to a notable radio personality doesn't make you automatically notable. Lankiveil 12:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The assertion that the references are only in the Howard Stern Universe is unfounded. For instance, IMDB is NOT confined to the Howard Stern universe. Using the argument that being a producer to a notable person does not make one notable is flawed in the fact that all (radio/tv/movie) producers listed within Wikipedia would then need to be removed. In addition, Jason Kaplan is also a cast member of the Howard Stern Radio Show and Howard Stern On Demand, appearing in speaking roles countless times in both mediums. He is a credited professional photographer and writer. When one Googles Jason Kaplan, numerous independent references are available for verification.Skap30 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an indication of notability, plenty of non-notable people have entries on IMDB. Being a producer does not make one notable. If someone has an article on Wikipedia they are notable for something other than simply their job title. Please read wikipedia's policy on biographies at WP:BIO for the notability criteria that qualifies one for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, a google search turns up many links for Jason Kaplans on the first page that are not the same person as the subject of the article. No secondary sources referencing Jason Kaplan of the Howard Stern show are present.—Ocatecir ^Talk 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are not always necessary. WP:BIO also includes a 'special cases' section which states (one could safely include 'radio personalities') which Mr. Kaplan could be described as being a member of the Howard Stern Radio Show ensemble cast, a weekly contributor and a commentator on the Sirius Howard 100 "Wrap Up Show". There's a strong argument to be made that his membership as part of a popular radio show's ensemble cast qualifies as cult popularity. If the article is pulled one thing is for certain; it will end up as comedy fodder for the show;

From WP:BIO

Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities

With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. There's a strong argument that being on the ensemble cast of popular and certainly infamous radio such as the Howard Stern Show is 'notable'.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Again, most fans of the Howard Stern show--at the very least more than a 'cult show'--are aware enough of Jason Kaplan to know his weight (230 by the way) from his weekly weigh-ins and his years run-ins with Stern side-kick Artie Lange. Virgil61 07:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These nominations of certain Stern show employees has me wondering, specifically because of this in the special cases section:

The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Editors evaluating an article should assume that adequate research will support notability.[15]

Is "sufficient reliable information" and verifiable information different from "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"? This question is directed to anyone.

I ask because it has just occured to me that they certainly fit under the definition of people with a "cult following" but the nature of a "cult following" doesn't allow for a lot of outside reporting of the subject matter, does it? El hombre de haha 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Kaplan is not "just a producer" any more than Baba Booey is. He's a radio personality and television personality on the vanguard radio show in the country, responsible for reversing the direction of an entire industry, particularly in regard to the non-terrestrial radio segment of it, during which time Kaplan was a member of the show. I'd be curious as to whether anybody who's actually a listener of the show would entertain the notion of their non-notability. Ocatecir, you're a member of the wikipedia Jackass project. The Jackass page links to not one but two seperate wikipedia entries for CAMERAMEN. This for an entertainment project which currently puts out a movie ever 4 years and maybe has a show or 2 at anytime on MTV2. Nobody has tried to create a seperate profile for any of the Stern show cameramen, who do make occasional appearances talking on a show that has 5 million listeners a day and had 20 million when it was free. Stephen's black friend 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I listen to the show every day. Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion that goes beyond "I like it". Other articles are irrelevant to this deletion discusion, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Famous, notable, and very important producer, radio personality, and television personality for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cast member and producer of one of the most popular radio shows in history is notalble. --Oakshade 05:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Marksfriggin.com is ran by a fan of the show and exists outside of the Stern show, that is one independent source. He posts specific show run downs that offer a lot of information not on and independent of the "Howard Stern infrastructure." Howardstern.com sources can be used as long as other independent sources are also used. I consider marksfriggin.com an independent source. However, I would like to see a clean up, inline citations and more diverse sources if possible. hombre de haha 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree Marksfriggin.com is a great resource to catch up on the show, it is still a fansite with no reputation for fact checking, so it does not meet the standards of WP:RS. —Ocatecir ^Talk 02:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus Pea ceNT 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hopkins School people[edit]

Delete/Merge to main article. Non notable.--Pigglywiggly30945 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dozens upon dozens of schools have split-offs for their famous graduates/professors, including essentially all the FA ones. This split-off was specifically done on request during the FA process. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Staxringold. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 22:05Z
Keep, against my normal inclination. Split was needed. Realkyhick 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this needed to be seperate now yuckfoo 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately notable. Captain panda 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 (group of people/web content with no assertion of notability). Tizio 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipes[edit]

No claims to notability, much less so than some deleted articles (such as ED). ShlamHam 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Conquest. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:32Z

Conqueror[edit]

Completely non notable online game. ALthough the developer is not given in the article, it appears to be made by "Juggleware". Googling for Juggleware and Conqueror gives 5 Google hits[16]. The article makes no claims to notability, and no reliable independent sources to establish any could be found. Fram 11:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect back to Conquest - even if this were notable it would be appropriate to have Conqueror point to a dab page and rename this something else, but as that is not the case, a simple redirect will do. This is clearly non-notable, the article doesn't even bother mentioning who the independent developer is. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Arkyan, though I've got to admit I might play this game now that I know about it. But it still should be redirected. Realkyhick 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete nonsensical and implausible assertions of notability. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 14:07Z

Jack Humphrey[edit]

Hoax. "He also enjoys a fine wine with his favourite meal: sauteed peasant child."? Come on. Lankiveil 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-article --MoRsE 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a hoax.--Cyrus Andiron 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The assertions of notability are obviously false, it's as though they weren't there. MER-C 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack glidden[edit]

Non-notable pro-wrestler. Very few Google results, more of which talk about an autistic seven-year-old than about this wrestler. Lankiveil 11:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, almost a speedy A7 candidate for lack of edifying content. YechielMan 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't sound legit to me, a man who's never appeared in the WWE/WWF under either name nor WCW/NWA/ECW or anywhere else I can remember working on DVD projects with the WWE? Maybe if he's a sound editor or something. Reads like a prank article MPJ-DK 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 05:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flip flop friday[edit]

Looks like complete nonsense (and nothing comes up on Google). I've resisted speedy deleting because I want to be sure. Waggers 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is definitely not notable. LittleOldMe 12:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this is nonsense too. Lankiveil 12:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Kind of sounds like something made up at school one day. --Cyrus Andiron 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki then~~ Delete - this is a perfectly genuine term see Ghits here. However, though there are many sources, the content of this article seems nonsense with most instances of 'Flip Flop Friday' being charitable fund-raising with employees making a donation in return for wearing flip flops at work. I am doubtful if there is enough to be said about it to make an article. TerriersFan 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TerriersFan brings up a good point in that some employers will do this, which would ordinarily give me cause for a transwiki, but here, the article starts to ramble. Can't justfiy a keep for this one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ah, thanks, I have clarified my proposed action. TerriersFan 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article as-is is little more than sneaky spam for a sandal company: "they are by far the best quality of flipflops that the inventor has ever worn and have a life time guarantee..." Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:33Z

Jagriti Yatra[edit]

Non-notable NGO. A measly 4 ghits, and no external sources I can find that would indicate notability. Lankiveil 12:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a gsearch for ("Jagriti" NGO) rather than ("Jagriti NGO") yields 12,800 hits. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article isn't about the NGO. It's about a train trip the NGO is putting together. Whether Jagriti NGO is notable or not, this article is promotional spam for their non-notable train trip. -Haikon 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jagriti itself might be notable but as per Haikon this article is not notable. Davewild 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haikon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete we don't accept advertisements here. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 14:10Z

The PowerMark Group (PowerMark)[edit]

Autobiographical promotion of a company. LittleOldMe 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly an NN company. Of the awards that they claim to have won, one has about 300 other winners in the same category (the Davey award), and another doesn't list the company at all (the Telly award). Lankiveil 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete - corporate vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonlight Sonata in popular culture[edit]

From the article: "it is unsurprising that the work, and particularly its first movement, should frequently appear in works of popular culture. This article is a listing of these appearances." Basically then, it could be re-named List of references to the Moonlight Sonata in popular culture, this is clearly an unmanageable list, that has a virtually unlimited number of potential items. The article appears to attempt to list every single time the piece is used as backround music in television, movies and video games, as well as every musical piece it has inspired. In addition, not a single item is sourced. Dr bab 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 12:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the sonata's article. Why to delete teh information?--Ioannes Pragensis 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or selectively merge with the article in chief on Beethoven's Sonata #14. Beethoven and the Sonata are not notable for any other reason than that the music is widely performed and alluded to, enough to become a point of cultural reference. If this information is "indiscriminate" or "trivial," then the articles on Beethoven or the Sonata should be deleted along with it.
Also, the claim that most or all of the statements in this article are "unreferenced" is deeply unconvincing. If you recognize the Sonata's music in a full performance, you can recognize a quotation of it elsewhere; pointing this out is not an original hypothesis of a kind that requires further referencing.
Major allusions, direct quotations, and derivative works by major artists of the Sonata probably belong in the article on the Sonata itself. If consensus can't be mustered as to which works deserve that sort of exposure, this should be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct that the Sonata is noteable for being performed and listened to, but that does not, in my opinion, mean that every such instance is noteable, and need to be listed. I agree with Mangojuice that a section on the impact of this piece could be appropriate, but an exhaustive list such as this is meaningless. Wikipedia is not about everything, nor should it be. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 09:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - I did not mean to suggest that each item in this list ought to be retained. Until such time as some kind of consensus arises to determine which appearances of the Sonata are significant enough, though, no information should be removed. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having looked over this exhaustive list, I can't say that any of this stuff is specifically important enough to be described without any form of connecting analysis. Surely, this piece of music is important enough that someone has actually written about its effect on culture: that material can go at the main Moonlight Sonata page, but the rest of this unsourced junk should go. See Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) for a very typical encapsulated history of how this junk heap came into existence (see also WP:IPC). Mango juice^talk 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this werea subsection of the main article, I'd want it removed for being too trivial. The entire article is basically one big trivia section. I have no prejudice against discussing the cultural impact of the piece in a well sourced legacy section in the main article. Jay32183 22:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per--Ioannes Pragensis, Smerdis of Tlön Lostinlodos 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mango. Please do not merge. It would be appropriate to have a few well chosen examples, discussed in context, in the main article, but this is just a mess, that looks like mere rough notes for an article. Postlebury 20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"mere rough notes for an article" That is how many wiki articles have developed.... Rich Farmbrough, 08:04 25 April 2007 (GMT).

Comment I found this article to be very informative in terms of how many times the Sonata has been used in popular culture. Seeing such a comprehensive list encourages one to listen for the occurrence the next time they encounter that item. It is this completeness of information that keeps me coming back to Wikipedia, and while the presentation perhaps could be tidied up, it should in no way be abridged, reduced or deleted. Steve Roper, Adelaide, South Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.45.140.38 (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Your arguments basically boil down to WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Remember that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - List now is for notable appearances made by the movement "Moonlight Sonata" in popular culture and has a reasonable membership criteria. -- Jreferee 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) These "popular culture" articles are a standard fission product of main articles, there's no point deleteing them, having a new sectio in {{main}} article and then having that hived off into a list. Rich Farmbrough, 08:03 25 April 2007 (GMT).
Keep. So long as these pop-culture contributions don't appear in the main article (where they are utterly inappropriate), I'm fine with having pop-culture references -- it tells us what ordinary people are thinking about. Opus33 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument doesn't make any sense. The rules for stand alone articles are stricter than those of subsections. The whole list is trivia, and trivia sections are frowned upon. Splitting the trivia off into its own article is not the solution. Jay32183 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does indeed make sense - sheesh. People read articles about the Moonlight Sonata, and articles about Moonlight Sonata-related pop culture, for quite different reasons, and there's no reason we shouldn't serve both audiences. Opus33 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, there is a reason not to serve both audiences. Wikipedia is not a fan site, it is an encyclopedia. Without any analysis the list is meaningless to an encyclopedia, even if people find it useful and interesting. Jay32183 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jay32183, you are being a pest. Please stop bothering the people who cast votes on these pages. I'm taking this one off my watchlist now, bye. Opus33 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        General reminder to everyone because of the above comment. This is not a vote, it is a discussion. If you say something factually wrong, expect some one to call you on it. Jay32183 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the 'in popular culture' articles are not always sensible, I'm in favor of this one because most the of the entries refer to an actual Wikipedia article, and in most cases that article mentions the Moonlight Sonata. I'd be in favor of removing every item from this list that doesn't meet that criterion. This is the same type of justification you will see whenever 'List' articles are debated. I'm OK with reasonable lists where every list item points to a Wikipedia article. If you don't agree with a particular entry, you can always propose the corresponding article for deletion. EdJohnston 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are supposed to be a collection of WIkipedia articles. Lists have to have clear criteria for inclusion. All the things that have Wikipedia articles is actually quite arbitrary. If the list is going to be made, whether the item has an article should not affect the inclusion on the list because it should fit the scope either way. Jay32183 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cited, verifable and notable. Andy Mabbett 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 1995 Demo Tape[edit]

Only source is from a messageboard, and it was never even released. Joltman 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Untitled demo with no sources. --Cyrus Andiron 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the only thing we know for sure is that it did exist. Andy, the band's former drummer, confirmed it on his bands' forums ( http://excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=38220&threadid=1281500 ).

Delete Per nom. How many other "untitled demo tapes" do you suppose there are from 1995 or any other year since tape was invented? Edison 14:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned up the whole trouble. It's all just facts now. gracz54 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting piece of information, but this can be covered in the band's article. Why does it need it's own page to convey basically nothing? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is really nothing there beyond speculation, even after cleanup. - BierHerr 21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge if necessary, but even if it's factual and "important" within the scope of the band, it isn't notable enough for its own page. Lemonsawdust 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, "made for reference purposes only for band members and close friends". In other words, a tape they made a few copies of and passed around to their buds. Also no references. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Styles[edit]

fails WP:PORNBIO; most likely created for promotion, given the contribs of the article creater Wclearwaterxxx (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppets Oliverbonexxx (talk · contribs) and Steveoholland (talk · contribs). Prod removed without comment by Clearwater. Natalie 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non notable actress. However, this line from the article is a killer: Nadia is currently staring in several movies. I didn't know that's how adult actresses got ahead in life. Maybe she can really hold her gaze... --Cyrus Andiron 12:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article about non-notable performer. No indication that any factual info about her real name or other biographical details are in the article. Lacks reliable sources and lacks evidence of notability. Edison 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep especially after the improvements by Nick mallory. I am declining Bduke's suggestion to list this version in a separate AFD because the girl is nonnotable, and the article would fall under CSD A7. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 07:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Price[edit]

Page fluctuates between being an inherently unnotable child, and an Australian lady cricket player with practically no info on her. Either can we decide to keep one, or get rid of them both (Or, of course, split them up into a disambiguation page). USernamezz 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The cricket player Julia seems to be a stub-length article with no assertions of notability, and the other is clearly a vanity page by a proud family member. Will be tagging as such shortly. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged per Criteria A7: Unremarkable. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The cricket player stub version, which this article used to be until February this year, is this version. Her biography on Cricinfo is here. I'm leaving the unwikified singer(?) version in place since it is lengthier.

Voters: please do comment on the notability of both versions; the article can be reverted to whichever version this discussion finds notable, and protected at that version if necessary. Regards, —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 16:09Z

Comment I still feel both are a cause for deletion. The cricket player is the only one which even causes me to blink and a cursory search for information still turns up absolutely nothing... Though I'm sure someone more familiar with cricket might be able to come up with something. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I notice you have looked at both versions even before your first comment. However, I'm not sure a claim of appearing "for the Australian women's cricket team" is weak enough to warrant speedy deletion. In soccer, appearing for a national team would be quite notable, for instance. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 16:15Z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 16:19Z
Keep the cricketer - she has played 10 Tests and 84 One-Day Internationals, as per the Cricinfo link above. Merely 1 of either would make her pass WP:BIO for sportspeople, as having competed at the highest possible level. - fchd 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep cricketer per WP:BIO. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I still don't know a thing about Cricket, but will abstain from commenting for now if the candidate meets the criteria. I'd recommend sourcing the article with something which meets WP:RS to avoid problems in the future. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cricketer, wouldn't be an issue for deletion if it wasn't for the vandalism. I'm semi-protecting the page for a week, to prevent further abuse. Mango juice^talk 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep for the cricketer. Just because the sport is primarily a male one, doesn't mean that women don't play it to the highest level. If she has played 84 ODIs that makes her very high ranking within her sport - the fourth most capped Aussie - and given that Australia is arguably the world's top nation in Women's cricket... She was the regular wicketkeeper for a world champion national team, and ranks right near the top on the list of most dismissals made in ODIs (see here). If this doesn't meet notability, then the likes of Mia Hamm and Anne Donovan also merit deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cricketer as per WP:BIO as having played the relevant sport at the highest possible level. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cricketer for the reasons others have given. She is clearly notable. The other version seems non-notable. For clarity, I suggesting moving one version, adding a disambiguation page, keeping the cricketer and bringing the other article on the other person back here at AfD. --Bduke 02:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the Cricketer as a national sporting rep she meets WP:BIO. See here for further details. --Mattinbgn/^talk 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This AfD is an excellent example of attempting to fix a problem with a completely wrong solution. If an article is very short and frequently vandalised, it should be tagged for cleanup/expansion and semi-protected - not sent to AfD! -- Chuq (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, player has obviously competed at the highest level of two sports. Completely ridiculous nomination, in my opinion. Lankiveil 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the article is terribly short and stubby, but the subject clearly meets sportsperson notability guidelines, having played at Ashes and World Cup level. --Canley 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added more information and references to the article, it should pass muster now. She's clearly a notable person, having played Test cricket for her country. Sometimes it's easier to spend 10 minutes making a perfectly justifiable article better, rather than an hour trying to get rid of it. Perhaps lankybugger could do more than a 'cursory search' for information on a person before tagging them for deletion. She's on cricinfo and cricket archive and even a google search for 'julia price cricket' shows she's notable straight away by coming up with lots of match reports for her games for Australia and Queensland. Nick mallory 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I mentioned, I did a cursory search and found nothing. However, as I also mentioned, my knowledge of cricket could fill a thimble with room to spare, hence why I changed from Delete to Neutral in this matter and defaulted to the opinions of editors with more experience in the field of cricket than myself. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International cricketer. Postlebury 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Gnan garra 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Chaser's War On Everything episodes[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This kind of info would be good for a Chaser Wikia, but not for Wikipedia Chuq (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other shows have similar episode lists - and in fact there was a wikiproject dedicated to maintaining just this sort of article (now merged with WP:TV. It's a violation of WP:NPOV to pick and choose. This article could use a bit of expansion such as, say, a link to the main series article. 23skidoo 13:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Other shows have plotlines, characters and events. This article is a list of skits. WP:NPOV is about article content. If its a violation of WP:NPOV, then I guess you would approve of List of Sunrise episodes, List of Lateline episodes and List of Southern Cross Nightly News episodes? -- Chuq (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted below, shows don't need to have plots in order to warrant episode lisitings. Which would you prefer: a single list article, or separate articles on each episode? 23skidoo 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd prefer notable sketches, and frequently recurring sketches, be included in the main article. And they are. (When that section gets too big, it can be split out.) -- Chuq (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The most pertinant guideline is WP:EPISODE Ga rr ie 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The topic is equivalent to a lot of pages in Category:Saturday Night Live. The bulletted lists strike me as hard to read and a little crufty, but that's salvagable. -Haikon 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC
- See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Also, I don't see any articles in that category that directly compare to this one (ie. a list of all skits for every single episode)? They all seem to discuss summaries or highlights, which is how it should be. Obviously Saturday Night Live has more content as is has been running for much longer, hence their content is split over more articles. -- Chuq (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that right now the article isn't written in an encyclopedic tone. As I said, I think its salvagable. I only brought up Saturday Night Live because the main argument for deletion was that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. I noticed above that some one said, "we don't have an article on y, so we shouldn't have an article on this". I was just hopping on the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? bandwagon. -Haikon 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While there are no plots as such, the show is tightly scripted, at least as to what they're going to do that week. Additionally there are certain themes that can play out over several episodes (Logies, Miners, AWB etc). I see your point, maybe there is a better way to do this, a better article might be List of the Chaser's War On Everything Stunts which would chronicle a more specific portion of the show, and one that the show is notorious for?? Jpk82 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Chaser is a popular Australian television show and while it could do with a cleanup and sourcing, the article is worth keeping in its current form. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree, it is very popular, I am a huge fan of it myself - obvious an article such as The Chaser's War On Everything should exist, but this doesn't mean the same holds true for this particular article. -- Chuq (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a list of skit names which does not explain what the skits actually were and provides no useful information either to people who watched the show or people wondering what it is about. The only way this would be a useful page is if each skit had about a half-paragraph outlining what it was about, which I doubt anyone is ever goin to do. Euryalus 02:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recurring sketches should be liked and one-off sketches removed but the list seems in line with WP:EPISODES (given the Chaser's is a sketch show that is)Ga rr ie 04:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running sketches could be included in the main article and the rest is more than likely unencyclopaedic.--Mattinbgn/^talk 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The wiki needs this Crested Penguin 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:EPISODES. Lankiveil 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep, keeping it is ok but how about a "notable episodes" segment in the main article, and merged with well know controversies.Jasewase 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The show is coming so popular now and if The Wedge can have an episode guide(List of The Wedge episodes). Surely a show that gets way more viewers in Australia and even more worldwide surely deserves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheCoinMan (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 April 2007
- I'm not disagreeing that it is popular, I love the show - but this is about how appropriate this episode list article to Wikipedia, not the popularity of the show. Regarding List of The Wedge episodes, please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? - if this article ends up deleted I'll be nominating that one next. -- Chuq (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if this article is deleted then people will just add all the stuff to the main article like they used to. They used to add every ad road test for example and that ruined the short description for that segment.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-04-24 10:34Z

Ugly code[edit]

It's a common enough colloquialism, but this article is completly OR and unreferenced. Mikeblas 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too minor a term to ever have a full topic, definelty not a seperate "type of code in it's own right. --Jimmi Hugh 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I've maintained code like this before. Code styles like Spaghetti code, Ravioli code, Lasagna code, and so on are documented, but "ugly code" is just too generic of a word and unlikely to have a precise definition. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quick-and-dirty. Quick and dirty code redirects there too so it would be consistent to make this a redirect to the same page. TerriersFan 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so obvious as to obviate definition, much less an article Mangoe 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep is the consensus, now with a release date confirmed, though the source isnt exactly WP:RS. Gnan garra 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital G (song)[edit]

Believed to be the second single off of the new Nine Inch Nails album Year Zero. Was tagged for speedy, but speedy was invalid, and now we have some prod warring, so moving here. No clue whether this will really be the second single, but if it is, it's entirely likely to be recreated if deleted anyway. This is simply procedural for the sake of avoiding an edit war between two other parties, so I'm abstaining. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, WP:NOT is not criteria for speedy, so I apologize for my folly there. Again, the only "source" that this is the second single is that the sticker on the front of the album says "16 noisy new songs, including Survivalism and Capital G." (Survivalism is the first single from the record.) As it stands, this song is not notable, and is simply a track off of a Nine Inch Nails record. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has been confirmed that the song is the second single. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confirmed where? It probably is, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. BotleySmith 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Nine Inch Nails hotline has confirmed it; since they're linked from the official nine inch nails website, I have faith in them as being a reliable source. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but their source is speculative at best... ~~it's only been rumored, not confirmed.~~ BotleySmith 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I suck. I should have actually looked. I am changing back to Delete. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interscope are now confirming it via email, so I'm going to have to say Keep. BotleySmith 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been following the Alternate Reality Game Reznor and 42 have made for all of his fans since the beginning, and I personally believe the Capital G will in fact be the second single. However, for the sake of accuracy and reporting, this article is very speculative and needs to be deleted (or kept in storage?) until it is affirmed by Reznor or the band's representatives, or the record label for that matter, none of which have happened yet... Take it away for now, because if it is a single later, the article will come and be accurate... Jgrizzy89 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strong circumstantial evidence says that this will be the second single, but nothing verifiable yet. -- rynne 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable. Can we please wait until there is an announcement? Tabanger 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though it is speculative, I think we should keep it unless we get info that it won't be a single. And it is a notable song without being a single. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with goldenglove plus if it does become a single there will be more info such as, chart positions, tracks on the single, etc. Doody 09 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per [17]. Although some language cleanup might be necessary, the article should stay. Drewcifer3000 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Drewcifer3000. Also, the sticker on the cover of the new album states '16 noisy new songs, including: Survivalism and Capital G'. So in the very unlikely case that the song will not be a single, there is still something special going on, and for that reason it deserves its own page. eboy 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's pretty much confirmed as the next single (only a matter of time till it is "officially" announced), the page has been created and people have put effort into the article, no point in deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajplmr (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep As previously mentioned, Capital G is looking like it's going to be the second single. Promos are already appearing on eBay. The page is already set-up and ready to go - may as well keep it a bit longer until a definite confirmation comes about. Geologik 00:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that the album cover would contain single names rather than individual songs Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 05:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page now no longer relevant - it has been officially confirmed by the record label via the mailing list that Capital G is Halo 25. Needs to be removed and wrapped up, and the details moved to discussion. Looks like the sticker was right all along. Slavedriver 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bustin[edit]

NB, I've made Chris bustin into a redirect - closing admin please delete it if this article is deleted.--Doc^g 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was "No consensus" last time, but after this AFD can I request that we reconsider. Mr Bustin is no more notable, nor more likely to be actually elected than Mr Cooper. Mais oui! 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Doc^g 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidate received 12% of the vote in what I believe to be the equivalent of a city election here in the States. Also, what about this article. Same guy, less information. Should they both go? --Cyrus Andiron 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He was a candidate for our national election, equivalent to a US House election and this is for the Scottish parliament so it is equivalent to an election to a US state legislature. TerriersFan 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't think that likelihood of being elected should be considered, as you never know- the Scottish Conservatives may win a landslide vote and win the election! However, we should wait till that actually happens before we create an article for him. Astrotrain 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Chris is a member of the Constitutional Monarchy Association" is enough for me to say Delete as well! --MacRusgail 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Easiest WP:SNOW ever. Everybody apart from nominator advocates keeping or merging (which are essentially the same outcome). kingboyk 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech massacre timeline[edit]

Keep I have just about had it with this disrespectful deletion discussion about a major noteworthy event, when there are tv shows (!) and episodes (!?!) that have their own article. This is only drawing so much attention BECAUSE it is a noteworthy event... in effect, proving its own notability. As for me, assuming there is no space limit to Wiki, we can have as much articles about both notable events and TV episodes as we like. I strongly suggest people leave the Virginia articles be. Romancer 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Virginia Tech Massacre was not a war, and it definitely effect no one on a major scale. To take it this much out of context compeltely undermines the meaning of out many other good articles. All this information can be found by looking at either the Cho page of the Virginia Tech massacre page, it definetly does not need a seperate timeline, this serves no purpose but to make the event look far more importatnt than it is. Unless of course you plan on making a timeline for every event that caused a group of people to die? Perhaps for every group of iraquirs killed during the "Oil War" or perhaps one for each group killed by a bomb? Of course this was sarcasm, they are notable for only a single page on the more major topic also. --Jimmi Hugh 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...for at least a month The VT Massacre is a horrible event and one of the ways that a person may process it emotionally is to look at the details of how it unfolded in an effort to understand if anything could have been done differently. It gives a different perspective from a narrative. Cherylyoung 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is relevant information, and it was moved from the main article Virginia Tech massacre because that article is getting pretty long. I see no compelling reason to delete it. Of course WP does not have the same level of detail for each and every event of importance around the world, but that should actually be the goal. Instead of deleting this information, we should be expanding other articles to match this level of detail. LinguistAtLarge 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually note my sarcasm comment. Of course we are not going to have timelines for every killing, they serve no importance. This timeline has no place anywhere... if the information it provides is not in the other articles then they need serious work anyway. --Jimmi Hugh 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information into the main Virginia Tech Massacre article. This timeline is completely pointless. What are the grounds for inclusion into the timeline? I've said this before, there is no need for separate articles relating to this event. Put all the information into one article and the trim it down to what is essential. Most of the information in this timeline could be cut right away. Does it really matter when the shooter graduated high school? Probably not. I don't understand the need to sensationalize tragedies like this. 33 people died, let's mourn and move on. --Cyrus Andiron 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic information that branches from the main Virginia Tech Massacre article. That article is a bit on the long side. This is a natural bifurcation that should be linked from there. --Mhking 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Columbine High School massacre also contains a number of offshoot articles, which means that this one is likely to need them as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as already well put. Epson291 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article. A succinct timeline would be useful, with important and referenced times and places, pereferably along with a map to show how the events unfolded. It does not need to be so overly detailed, verbose and filled with tons of original research as to require a separate article. Edison 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...If only for the time being I would say that this should be kept for now since this is such a recent event and people are wanting a good source for a timeline of information. The CNN and FOXnews sites have some timelines, but they are hard to find, and a lot of people are coming to WP for information. In the future, it could be remerged into the article or deleted as seen fit. It's just that the Virginia Tech massacre article was getting MUCH too big, and something needed to be moved. I would say give it a month or so, and reevaluate the necessity. Killintimeslowly 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not a short term news site. It is a long term store of human knowledge. All the information in the timeline is provided perfectly well in the main articles... we do not do temporary pages here. --Jimmi Hugh 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Whether you consider it a "short term news site" or not is irrelevant: people are using it as such. This timeline is more detailed than the few paragraphs in the main article. Yes, there are some people who would want JUST a more succinct run through of the events, but some would also like a more detailed day-by-day description of the event. THUS it warrants its own page. The purpose of this article was to keep the main one from becoming overwhelming. WP has plenty of space to handle this small article.
    - Comment I am afraid wikipedia does not make room for "one offs" or do things because "everyone else is doing it". The whole point of this discussion is to ensure Wikipedia policy is followed. As a person completely unaffected by these events i can honestly say that this article and all related ones (except obviously the main event article) completely ignore Wikipedia Guidelines. Please try to argue your point with a policy that backs you up, and not because that is what everyone does with wikipedia. --Jimmi Hugh 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this massacre is unusual precisely because of the time element, i.e. the time elapsed between the two halves of the killings, the controversy over letting classes take place after the first murders, etc. Rhinoracer 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and I propose we short-circuit debate. There doesn't seem to be much point since the other side didn't show up. Ronnotel 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are you on about? Given that all the information i nthe article is already in the other pages, the merge comments are identical to deletes. Infact i would have put this on the articles for merge page... but deleting it achieves the same and is neccesary anyway. So Both sides are here and in disagreement as always. --Jimmi Hugh 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Short-circuiting AfD discussions can only happen if opinion is quite unanimous. This is definitely not the case here. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:58Z
Merge per above --Hillock65 15:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the key points of the timeline of the actual incident - not all the leadup items that have been included here - into the Virginia Tech massacre article. This level of intense detail and background information on a single subject - regardless of how big a deal it is - is not suitable to a general knowledge encyclopedia. At this rate of information spamming and hyperintimate detail we will practically have written an entire book on the subject rather than an encyclopedia article in no time. And no we can't "short circuit" this discussion just yet, it's not even been listed an hour and already people are calling for a speedy close? Give people a chance to express their opinions ... Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. Gandalf61 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article is sourced and relevant. Mystache 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Smerge Information is relevant, but I'm not sure if I want to make the main article even longer. Jauerback 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant information about a significant event; per WP:SIZE, main article too large already for it to be merged back in. (And gee, how prod-happy people are these days: about the only Virginia Tech shootings related-article they haven't proposed for deletion is the main article. It's probably just a matter of time.) --Yksin 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Think the opposite friend, for it is the main article we wish to focus upon. All information currently seperate from it must be in the main article for it to be complete anyway. To ignore the dates and times of basic events or forget a detail like the news report would make the main article incomplete. Therefore we propose a merger of information that is/should be in the main article. Sticking the time of a coupel of events in the main article will hardly bloat it, and if well written may not affect the size at all --Jimmi Hugh 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This timeline is informative and the main article is too long. --Neo-Jay 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment:I would just like to mention that I tagged the article for a clean up, in responce to the article being a little on the long-scale in terms on a timeline, it really should be a thourough article on just the day of the shootingRodrigue 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - We already have an article on just the day of the shooting, see Virginia Tech massacre -- Jimmi Hugh 20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do not merge, very useful, plenty of precedent. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Given the worldwide notability of the event (I've heard it called the most significant US-based criminal incident since 9/11) such a timeline article is more than worthy enough. However I would support revisiting it in six months to a year when things have calmed down a bit and see if it can be merged somewhere. 23skidoo 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unfortunately wikipedia does not do things temporarily. Until you hear that the Virigina Tech Massacre timeline is the most significatnt timeline of all time i don't think it deserves a place anywhere. Nearly all the dates and times are in other articles and the ones taht are nto can easily be slotted in. --Jimmi Hugh 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't live in Virginia but I have found this timeline to be extremely useful in determining the failure of Virginia Tech's security. Considering that this is the bloodiest shooting in U.S. history, I think the timeline deserves an article here in Wikipedia. Dionyseus 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. It's rather clear how this is going to end up. --Kizor 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a simple way of providing information, and is sourced and factual. I disagree with the implication on your nomination that the event isn't historically noteworthy to require multiple articles. This is too big to be merged nicely, and is an offshoot from the main Virginia Tech massacrearticle. -Halo 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, make that a Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. -Halo 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SNOW is only an option only when the consensus is for keep. Opinions on both sides are just as correct and frequent in this case. Therefore we wait till an administrator looks it over. Clearly numerous people have said merge and the idea that is is speedy keep is crazy --Jimmi Hugh 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Good lord. -Phoenix 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. Ward3001 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a good nomination. Timelines are not exclusive to wars. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know, i was not insinuating they were. I was using a war as an example of the level of hype surrounding this entire topic. A timeline is unnesary when it only points out time from two articles. The point of a timeline would be to bring together far seperated events. In this case all these dates and time are (or should be) in the massacre and cho's articles. --Jimmi Hugh 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment: An exclusive timeline article is good. Often thats what we want to know: what happened when? This article serves that purpose. Yes there's duplication of information but this is a timeline. Its ok to have duplication in this important event. People are not "trying" to make it look more important than it is. It is very important and for any important people want to have multiple ways of displaying information. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If that is how "people" want todo it they can on their own websites. I try to follow policy, and it dictates that this should be merged into the main article. --Jimmi Hugh 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Policy doesnt say everything should be merged. As you can see everyone said Keep. Someone please keep and take out this disruptive template and do a speedy keep. You've nominated a number of things that people have wanted to keep, some from this massacre event. The deletion templates make a page look bad if its a bad deletion nomination. Discuss a little on the talk page first before nominating further, thats my advice.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not use the term "everything". In this case merger is the correct course of action though. And refering to my other nominations, they are all of equal arguemnt for both sides so it was fair to put them up for deletion. This is definetly not a speedy keep as numerous people agree with both sides. --Jimmi Hugh 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just read the first Keep comment. Wait for some time before nominating any other V. massacre related articles. People are reading all this stuff. They dont wanna see unnecesry deletion templates. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep very encyclopediac and informative--Sefringle 05:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

Keep The presentation is clear and well referenced, well beyond what I could expect if the content were selectively merged. I'd almost say speedy keep, but there are a few dissenters. YechielMan 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why people are complaining so much. You rush to put a tag saying that the main article is too long, then when people take easily removed chunks and branch them off to satisfy you, you say they should be deleted. Make up your mind. Violask81976 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for one thing, given that this would not be displayed in full (it would be scattered) it would take up no extra room. Secondly, we do not allow conflicting policies to win over each other, we find away to adhere to both. --Jimmi Hugh 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Virginia Tech massacre has spawned a number of bad articles that are currently at AFD, and I have voted "delete" at several of them. However, this is not one of bad or unnecessary articles. A subarticle on the timeline of events is a logical way to shorten an excessively long article. Most importantly, unlike the bad articles, this article focuses on what is notable, the massacre itself.--FreeKresge 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article is necessary to illustrate the incident in a clearer way. There is no reason for a deletion here and certainly not worth for discussion. Chris 05:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noteworthy topic and well-referenced article. The timeline is an important supplement for clarification. +A.0u 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FreeKresge. Carcharoth 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and maintain status quo for two weeks - these articles are all high visibility topics - we don't need article space cluttered with deletion templates right now - it's not the impression we want to give visitors about Wikipedia. --BigDT (416) 12:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia doesnt have a policy on this. I could disrupt Google by putting in a deletion template and then we'd have to wait 5 days before that thing is gone from the top of the page. Unnecessary bad nominations should be done away with ASAP. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments about numbers aside, we can't have articles without reliable third party sources. This is based on policy: no original research, verifiability, and attribution. --Wafulz 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inselkampf (2nd nomination)[edit]

Delete - No assertion of notability, only sources provided are primary or fan sites, Fails WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 14:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very easy to tag AFD without considering an articles contribution. Also if this is not considered notable than about 80% of the other entries in the category browser based games should also be deleted, and that would be silly, becuase there is a place for a NPV source on such matters. There seems very little reason to delete a pretty well written and interesting article. The points made for the first afd debate are still valid, and player numbers have risen substantially since then [[18]]. Well whatever. Bjrobinson 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. B) WP:FISHING C) WP:BIGNUMBER D) Feel free to name some of the 80% of the other entries you feel are less notable, and I'll be happy to look at them and, if need be, nominate them for deletion. DarkSaber2k 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can't compete with your sort, the fact you responded to that in 2 minutes and looking at your contributions spend most of your time deleting things on WP is fine. Find them yourself :) Bjrobinson 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -> Its a very well-written, objective, account of the game. Third-Party sources are not availible for games like inselkampf. This is because no-one writes books and rarely Magazine entires that couldnt be described as Fan-based. You might say that thats a reason for deleting it, but its not making any unfounded claims. If you could please pick out a particular piece that needs changing or verifying then i will do that. It would be incredibly rash and ill-judged to delete such a promising article. The speed of these replies should also indicate just how widely read this article is.EdPethick 16:27, 20 April 2007 — EdPethick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thrid-party sources are available for games like Planetarion, another online Browser-based game, and the 2 or 3 actually notable BBGs with articles here also have some independant sources. Hollywood Stock Exchange has had articles in the New York Times for example. The piece of the article that needs rewriting is in fact the entire article since absoutely none of it makes any assertions that the site passes any of the criteria suggested by WP:WEB.DarkSaber2k 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both of the misguided keeps above. If a subject has no third party sources, which even its proponents do not dispute, then we cannot have an article on it. —Cryptic 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is like an instruction book for the game. Once the strategy guide is removed, there are only about three sentences of information about Inselkampf outside the world of the game. -Haikon
Delete - Pretty clear: no third-party sources means no notability. It can be as popular as it wants to be, but with no source of verification, there isn't much we can do for the article to keep it. --Scottie_theNerd 03:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I find myself concerned with a trend I see to delete articles in the MMORPG category. Some of these games have been around for years and have VERY large followings. I understand the reasonings behind the nominations, as MMORPGs are notoriously difficult to cite and source, there simply are not a lot of well-known sources in the MMORPG community, especially when it comes to browser-based games. The sourcing consists mostly of user-review sites and word of mouth. I think we should cut some of these games a little slack. If we don't, we will end up not having articles on some of the major games out there, and that would be a shame. Inselkampf is a VERY notable game, almost everyone who plays these things has played it, or at least heard of it. The notability guidelines are just that: GUIDLINES, and should not be treated like strict rules. The word "guidline" implies adjustment, and we should be adjusting slightly to keep some of these articles. This article is well written and covers a notable game. It should be kept. Matt Brennen 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks reliable sources and I can't find any through my Googling. You can't write an article with only primary sources. Wickethewok 06:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I think you should Google some more then. This game is notable in my mind. It is played accross many servers with very active Clan/Alliance forums. Player accounts and resources get traded and sold on the various country eBay sites. There are ICQ groups, stores, and even other Wikipedia artciles in other languages. The question we need to ask is 'Does this game exist, and is it played beyond a couple of hundred players?' The answer is Yes. It should be in Wikipedia. I also think the level of debate here would help suggest a level of notability too. Nycmstar (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the question we should ask at all. —Cryptic 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bottom line: no reliable sources, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC

Comment There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far. (Didn't sign when posted User:bjrobinson.

I totally agree except that we are not talking about policy we are talking about a guideline. I think we should all keep that in mind. The reason it's a guidline is to leave room for us to use our better judgment. I don't thing destroying an entire category is an example of good judgement. Each one of those speedy deletes should be up for review, IMHO. Matt Brennen 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Cryptic from earlier in this AfD: If a subject has no third party sources, which even its proponents do not dispute, then we cannot have an article on it. If no sources exist you can't just say 'Oh let it on anyway, 10,000 people play it.' DarkSaber2k 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

except that there are sources. Most of these games are on a lot of review sites. Why? Because that's how it's done in the business. There are no printed MMORPG magazines (that I'm aware of) and so review sites are pretty much it. Notability guidlines should take into account the fact that a MMORPG is about as notable as it is possible to get in it's field, and games like Inselkampf and Ferion are as notable or more notable than any other games of their kind. Matt Brennen 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Matt Brennen. I'm not expecting to read about this game anytime soon on the front or inner pages of The New York Times. That doens't mean its not notable. There is a whole facet of life that does not take place in the pages of a journal or magazine. --Nycmstar 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Nycmstar[reply]

Keep game seems notable enough, but article needs work. Russeasby 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:36Z

LIBM theory[edit]

This appears to be a neologism - 0 useful ghits for Legislatively+Infallible+Business+Model-wikipedia - tediously enough, I was halfway through rewriting, when it started to look like a half-arsed homework - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until sources are provided, this cannot be verified. --Cyrus Andiron 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prop Store of London[edit]

Completing a nomination. Original reason (from talk page) follows. Tizio 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This listing should be removed for lack of citations and lack of notariety. One listing in a "best of the web" article does not constitute a Wikipedia reference because it is not solely an article about this one company. Further, just because a site artificially boosts their traffic via chep pop-up advertising so that their alexa rank looks high does not make them notable. Also, many, many people and other companies collect, buy, and sell props from even much bigger and better known movies than those listed here, but that doesn't make any of them notable. I can go down to the store and buy a poster for Star Wars and then sell it the next day too.... does that mean I am deserving of a Wikipedia listing? No! 61.7.158.230 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spamvertisement. Mystache 16:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA. The Forbes article is a directory listing, and heavens knows how many "best of web" listings there are. The James Bond article is about a Christie's auction. The store is but the owner, and not the subject of the article. Ohconfucius 09:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it fails WP:CORP. Pufnstuf 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no demonstation or assertion of notability. cjllw ʘ TALK 08:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Harriet Blosse-Lynch[edit]

This is an orphaned article, and its only content is about how this woman is related to several other people. None of the other people have articles except for Wilhelm I, alleged to have been the godfather of this woman's second child (I think that's what the article's saying, anyway). Some of this woman's family may have been notable, and the prod was removed with the statement that "members of notable families are usually considered notable," but my understanding of precedent is that being related to a notable person does not create notability (as seen in the many articles about children of celebrities that have been deleted). The references provided are one website and one book, which are both in German. Propaniac 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not assert noteability of the subject beyond being the daughter of an Irish baron. The article does not mention that she had any titles, or made herself noteable in any way. Noteability is not inheritable. Dr bab 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Notable mother of from a notable family for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:37Z

Csvdiff[edit]

As I already wrote a few weeks ago on the talk page of this article, this perl script can hardly be called notable. For starters, anyone could write it, it is quite simple; also, it has been downloaded about 1350 times in 13 months, which isn't very much. But most importantly, I can't find any external independent references to it. – gpvos (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete lacks independent references which WP:NOTE and WP:SOFTWARE require. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:56Z
Delete - not notable, and better indexed/maintained by projects such as SourceForge. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:38Z

1:1 Project[edit]

Non-notable project related to Magic: The Gathering online game. Prod removed without comment. Orphaned. Propaniac 15:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I basically would've filed this as a CSD A7 for failing to assert why it is notable. It doesn't seem to have attracted any significant press attention yet and right now it reads like an advertisement. Mgm|^(talk) 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Fest[edit]

Toledo street party with no references. Prod (not by me) was removed without comment; prod reason was "A street party for a group of college students is of dubious notability. Even bigger parties, like Michigan State's notorious CedarFest, do not merit a Wiki page." Orphaned article. Propaniac 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. ~~Incidentally, its a word-for-word copy of this page which links to the article.~~ _{I carelessly skimmed that site and mistook it for insidious sneaky promotion.} -Haikon 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nonnotable event without serious press coverage. Note to Haikon: if another website has identical content and links to Wikipedia, it doesn't prove anything. If another website has identical content and does not link to Wikipedia, then the Wikipedia page may be deleted per CSD G12, copyright violation. YechielMan 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable event for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 05:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band Within A Band[edit]

This is a list of band names that contain the name of a back-up band, such as "Iggy and the Stooges." Indiscriminate information. Prod removed without comment. Orphaned article. Propaniac 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; unsourced and utterly indiscriminate. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:48Z
Delete per Resurgent insurgent . Mystache 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Rename it to Bands with "and the" in their name. That's what this amounts to. Beyond indiscriminate. Masaruemoto 05:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't serious about renaming it BTW, just in case someone doesn't get the irony. Masaruemoto 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy and Delete. utcursch | talk 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Bharadwaj[edit]

Apparent self promotion by User: Prashrb or possibly an impersonator. subject has limited notability --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not for the Imagine Cup part the page could have been speedied as an attack page. But he hasn't won anything in the Cup yet so I suppose he isn't notable at this point. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:54Z
- Well, it's just ten to twenty from a country who gets selected to represent! You may infact verify with Imagine Cup's selection policy, which says top two rankers from the average score are selected. It may not be notable when it's considered globally. But it does have values for the nation's pride --Prashrb 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : per WP:N. Vanity page, self-promotion by subject. --Ragib 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete has agreed to deletion. See Talk:Prashant Bharadwaj --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam. values for nation's pride...!? Anwar 16:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - The article is not fit for inclusion in its present state. If it is possible to improve the article, it is best that a new author starts from scratch. - Richard Cavell 09:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sisodia Mers[edit]

Non notable and unsourced legend. LittleOldMe 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFT Mystache 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay with no chance of ever becoming encyclopedic article. Daniel Case 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article Mers lists 12 Rajput Mer lineages. It looks like some one was trying to make an article for each one. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to say if they're legendary or "made up in school one day" or not, but I trust that the editors who wrote the Mers article (and the parts of the hundred odd articles that link to it, and Mehr) were telling the truth. I think it would be only fair to give people more than 40 minutes to find sources for it. -Haikon 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too trust that the editors who wrote the Mers article (and the parts of the hundred odd articles that link to it, and Mehr) were telling the truth but there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted - unsourced biography of an essentially-living person objected to and deemed libelous by the article subject. FCYTravis 06:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prokofy Neva[edit]

Delete, nn character, creator has said "contains a number of factual errors and also libelous statements." -- Zanimum 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't play Second Life, but I'm aware of it, and my impression is that this is a very well-known character. I think I may actually have looked up this article in the past, when someone referred to Prokofy Neva in a message board thread about the game. There are tons of Google hits for the name that appear relevant. The actual article is pretty awful, though. Propaniac 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if it contains libelous statements. Daniel Case 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is badly written, POV and Prokofy Neva is already covered in Resident(Second Life) Steven.Catron 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blogs and message boards are not reliable sources for information about living people. FCYTravis 19:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable..., unsourced. --Buridan 03:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that we should keep this article, but are characters on Second Life living people and the subject of BLP? DGG 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A character in a virtual world has a real person attached to it. That real person is very much covered by the BLP policy. FCYTravis 05:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pricol Technologies[edit]

Advertisement written in the first person. Google returns 796 hits. -Haikon 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Daniel Case 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged Completely Spam --Jimmi Hugh 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Boyer[edit]

Suspect non-notable under WP:PROF. Can't find much in the way of publications. Listed as an instructor at a community college (not that there is anything at all wrong with that). No information given in article about notability, and request for such was placed on the talk page a while back. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no notable references --Jimmi Hugh 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability as described seems to be as a web site manager, and is not documented. DGG 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF. Judging by what little is in the article, she seems very much to be the mythical "average college professor" that notable profs must compare themselves against. —David Eppstein 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looks to fail WP:PROF by wide margin. Pete.Hurd 14:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bloomingdales locations[edit]

WP:NOT a directory. The store's own website is the proper place for this information Daniel Case 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar discussion is on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parisian locations; this should probably be listed there instead. Tuxide 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 20#Category:Store locations listed here for convenience.

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. If you want to know where the nearest store is, Gooogle it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question what about the rest of Category:Store locations? Are there going to be follow-up nominations for it? FrozenPurpleCube 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, WP:ALLORNOTHING. In all honesty, yes, all of those should go. I have frequently removed such lists from articles; I don't see why we need to have them. But perhaps this requires one of those general discussions rather an AFD. In the meantime we should still delete this. Daniel Case 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, in other words, I want to know what you wish to do about the rest of the category which has similar problems. I make no argument, I wish to see information as to your position. Whenever I see an AFD that represents what I see as but one part of a small problem, I like to know what the nomination plans to do about the rest of the category. I've seen many times a nomination made without what I consider even that basic checking. Thus my question. FrozenPurpleCube 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entire category, save the misplaced Macy's West, is now up for deletion. See below for link. Daniel Case 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few very famous stores for which it might possibly be appropriate; if so, this is one, as are the others in the category. But frankly I think the category is so susceptible to abuse that neither the category nor the lists should be around--the potential for commercial spam is self-evident. This is a good time to get them all.DGG 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per FrozenPurpleCube. To kill the article is to kill the category. Lostinlodos 08:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And we're doing that. See below. Daniel Case 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not doubt to me this is the sort of article WP:NOT is aimed at. Ohconfucius 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as failing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. By popular request (sic), the others have been put up for deletion here. Ohconfucius 09:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not removing it, but...uh, you are voting delete twice? :-) What is this, Florida? Would you like to vote a third time too? </end of fun sarcasm> Tuxide 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been reminded that AFD is not a vote, but a consensus. Tuxide 05:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a directory. As others have said, WP:NOT a directory. Mango juice^talk 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Merge Passes WP:ORG, which says 'a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative.' Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But see the whole passage: "Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores." To me that means we don't need lists of locations. There have been Bloomingdale's in the US for a lot longer than there have been Wal-Marts in China. Their mere existence is not notable as the Wal-Marts would be (actually, given that Wal-Mart has now been in China for a while, the example should be changed to "List of Wal-Marts in North Korea"). Daniel Case 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original passage was 'a "List of Wal-Marts in Germany" would be informative'; however it was changed to China because Wal-Mart moved out of Germany and it sounded more foreign than "List of Wal-Marts in Canada". As per List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I don't think there are Wal-Marts in North Korea either. Tuxide 03:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how that statement is extended to lists given the passage that follows it. It's there to prevent the creation of articles on individual units like SuperTarget on 168th and Maple in Omaha, Nebraska (although SuperTarget on 132nd and Maple in Omaha, Nebraska could be notable since it is the first ever SuperTarget, but I wouldn't give it its own article. Flagship stores would be more notable, but unless enough can be said on it that can bring such an article on it to FA status then they should go in with the article on the chain). Tuxide 10:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to Keep meaning I could be swayed since it fails WP:V anyways. I am not convinced that deleting it is the right answer, since cleanup templates such as {{unreferenced}}, {{list to prose (section)}}, {{cleanup-laundry}}, etc. could also resolve this. Tuxide 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote again to merge, since I think simply marking them up with cleanup tags like I mentioned above so the information can be neutralized would be better. Tuxide 15:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does this fail WP:NOT#DIR? I am not seeing it. In the context of an AFD nom, a directory is a list of pointers, like a web directory. This article is merely a list of units (or former units) by state, and for each one lists the city it was in, the mall it anchored (many shopping centers have their own articles), and historical information such as the year it opened and closed. They do not list either the street address or the phone numbers for each unit, thus the Yellow Pages argument is invalid, especially when the unit is defunct. Thus I ask, is this list even a directory to begin with, and if so then how? If it is, then WP:NOT#DIR would conflict directly with what WP:ORG says concerning lists of units in a chain. Tuxide 07:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do not list either the street address or the phone numbers for each unit, thus the Yellow Pages argument is invalid So you're saying that it's a useless directory, then? --Calton | Talk 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am saying that it is not a directory and passes WP:NOT#DIR. Tuxide 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you've simply excluded some factors that would make it a useful directory, while leaving its essential nature intact. Unless you're trying to claim that usefulness is the essential quality that makes a directory a directory? --Calton | Talk 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure, maybe Bloomingdale's website lists the current locations, but do they list when each location opened? Do they list former locations on their website?... see where I'm going with this? TenPoundHammer 00:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grasping at straws, maybe? --Calton | Talk 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin This needs to be closed alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parisian locations (which is newer), given that this is part of a WP:ALLORNOTHING motive. Tuxide 21:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a directory, as has been noted by many others. Quale 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, a directory. OBVIOUS Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the recent comments, this is becoming uncivil. I am bringing this up on WP:WQA. Tuxide 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out reality -- you know, actual policy -- is uncivil? Live and learn. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. >Radiant< 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Maybe there should be a Wikirectory for these types of articles. -- Jreferee 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator. Tuxide and I discussed this briefly on our talk pages, and I feel that this information could be kept within the articles about the history of the various chains, where such articles exist, if they could be not only prosified but prosified in a historical context. That, to me, would be an encyclopedic use of the information. If it is closed in favor of deletion, at least let the WP:RETAIL people save it for their sandboxes or wherever so they have it at the ready to put in the proper format. Daniel Case 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this statement, from other keep comments WP:RETAIL and WP:MALLS obviously has enough manpower maintaining these lists to make neutralizing the content and integrating it into the history with citations doable, similar to Target Corporation#History. We will, however, need the edit history to be publicly available to make this action GFDL compliant. In that case, merge and redirect is most appropriate for legal reasons. Tuxide 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's call it merge and prosify. The main consideration for a redirect is whether anyone will be likely to use it as a search term. I doubt anybody but the listkeepers will be typing that in in months to come. Most people, particularly non-editors, will type in Bloomingdale's and expect the information to be there or in a possible daughter article like History of Bloomingdale's. Daniel Case 12:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you're the nominator so you can most certainly withdraw it. I suggest they be marked as {{unreferenced}}, {{list to prose (section)}}, {{cleanup-laundry}}, {{mergeto}} (for non-embedded lists), etc. I'm not going to work on them now because it's the week before finals in the university. My main argument towards having a redirect is the GFDL. The revisions of the lists themselves absolutely need to be available on Wikipedia if we're deriving history sections off of them. If an admin is willing to merge the history of the two articles together, that would be great and would defeat the purpose of keeping around a redirect. I don't know if MediaWiki allows this. Tuxide 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is your interest, you can copy all the information to the articles about the history of the various chains. Wikipedia is free content that can be used anywhere, even in other Wikipedia articles. You do not need the results of the AfD to take such actions. -- Jreferee 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore's production of Little Shop of Horrors by Dream Academy[edit]

OK it was ever so slightly adapted into something more identifiable with the Singapore crowd. But does that make it notable. (Part of the NUS Scholars Programme.) -- RHaworth 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I sincerely despair at how we are going to get WP:NOR, especially WP:SYN, into their heads... the key part of this article - "How it distinguishes itself as a Singapore production" - is novel synthesis, the "references" are being used to support an unsourced conclusion. This has been their usual approach so far. :( —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 21:55Z
Delete per nom. nadav 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to being notable. Realkyhick 06:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by The JPS. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Innovators Group[edit]

The text doesn't cite sources and does not indicate why this group of four students should be considered notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The author's wish to have "All Rights Reserved" is in conflict with the GFDL. Regards, High on a tree 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Tagged Given that this is a non-notable group with absolutely no references it confirms to speedy delete policy --Jimmi Hugh 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Author has now blanked page and removed all references. --Jimmi Hugh 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE ALL and redirect to Nightmare on Elm Street. Herostratus 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Grey[edit]

Delete All. Victim from Nightmare on Elm Street, "notable" for being Freddy's first. Not relevant enough for her own encyclopedia article. Major characters like Freddy and Nancy obviously deserve articles, minor victims do not.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons of being non-notable characters.

I must note that I am tempted to nominate various other characters from Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street characters as much of them fit the same criteria, but I'll desist for now on account that most of them are somewhat major characters.--CyberGhostface 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Nightmare on Elm Street,--Ioannes Pragensis 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect I am not really sure where to draw the line on fictional characters. I guess any fictional character that has more than a stub article probably has a decent case. This article is a stub although I think a slightly more in depth article might have gotten a keep. Can always be reforked later. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I understand that these characters are not very significant I believe that they were the 4 major teenage characters in A Nightmare on Elm Street and, like other articles on characters from various films like Star Wars, should be kept. Alternatively, one could create List of Characters in the Nightmare on Elm Street series similar to the page List of characters in Grand Theft Auto III.Abc85 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit I haven't seen the film in a while and I might be wrong if these in calling for the deletion if they are important to the film. If someone else can verify (or find a link that does) that these were important to the plot and not just horror victims, I will retract my vote for deletion.--CyberGhostface 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor charcter, no real world context. Redirect not effective as Tina Grey is an unlikely search term for Nightmare on Elm Street, and none of the information is worth perserving as it is just overly specific plot detail. Jay32183 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Notable characters for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on each topic. Thus, the topics do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the articles cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:39Z

Cabaret Jar[edit]

Mildly amusing surrealist hoax. Two refs have been added, but I am more convinced by what Google thinks. -- RHaworth 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because fruit flies like a banana, and Wikipedia is not a surrealist joke publisher. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Wikipedia is a surrealist joke, it is a joke that can only be experienced holistically. Read the whole thing to find the punch line. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is also not a slang dictionary, WP:NEO. Jay32183 22:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barruf[edit]

Neologism, no relevant google hits. Nekohakase 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferences, and non-notable term. Given the bad writing and incoherency of the article, possible nonsense speedy delete. --Jimmi Hugh 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly reads like nonsense. Also it's a (misspelled) copyvio from http://www.omertaa.org/volumes/volume20071/volume20071.html, "Omertaa, journal for Applied Anthropology, was launched in January, 2007". Surely speedy delete is appropriate. Flapdragon 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolic typing[edit]

Non-notable by virtue of lack of reliable, non-trivial, independent sources. Phrase returns many Google hits, but essentially all are promotional in nature and not independent. Article currently reads like an advertisement; without such independent, reliable sources it cannot evolve into a neutral, encyclopedic article. Propose deletion unless/until such independent, reliable secondary sources can be found. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It looks like quack pseudoscience to me, but it cites some references, so it meets the inclusion criteria. I share your concerns for neutrality, but I won't opt for deletion on that basis alone. YechielMan 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hear you, but check out the references. One is a broken link, and the other two are diet books promoting metabolic typing. I don't think we can write a neutral, encyclopedic article without reliable secondary sources, and I think it fails WP:N for that reason. MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another article about organizations or products or systems which uses common words and a minute amount of generally accepted background information to justify an article about their use in a proprietary sense. We've had these about exercise programs, and food supplements. "Metabolic typing (under the healthexcel approach" from the section helpfully titled "More" is being more candid than usual. Any references mentioned in the article are either proprietary system-specific, or too general to be relevant. DGG 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Google scholar found two or three independent scholarly articles, together with the original book and a larger number of fluffy-looking popular press items, on this subject. But for balance the article should also include some mention of critical analysis such as this. —David Eppstein 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policies. See, for example, Dr. Revici's approach to Cancer: a Metabolic Typing perspective. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. June 1, 2004. Eat yourself thin. And fit. Why your kitchen is as good for you as your gym Are you protein, carbohydrate or "mixed"? Metabolic Typing says we're all different on the inside - it's "a handbook for the body". Independent on Sunday (UK) January 4, 2004. Metabolic typing quiz Toe to top. Scotsman. January 16, 2001. -- Jreferee 05:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Final Fantasy titles. The merge has already been done, if anyone feels there is more info that should be merged, it's still available in the history. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Log[edit]

NN Webcomic. This is apparently an officially endorsed comic from Square Enix relating to Final Fantasy XI but, I don't think that can establish notability just yet, considering that the strip was only launched this week, and there's only one strip out. There is no way that we can support an article beyond a microstub from the available sources at this time. Delete. Mango juice^talk 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Final Fantasy XI. Not enough information for an individual article, but should definitely be mentioned in the FFXI article. Kariteh 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that, and should have said: I don't think a merge is appropriate: it's tangential to Final Fantasy XI, there's no good place for it. I couldn't find a good merge target, or I would have done it myself. The best merge target was List of Final Fantasy titles, which includes spin-offs and such, but nothing of this type is there. Mangojuice^talk 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the official comic strips are listed at List of Final Fantasy titles#Novels and manga. This one just happens to be webpublished, but it should still be mentioned. Kariteh 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except, all of those are novel/manga adaptations of previously existing stories. This would be a fan comic, except for its official status. But it would probably need its own section at least. Mangojuice^talk 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It demonstrates FFXI's cultural influence and should most certainly be included. EDIT: I mean of course, included in FFXI's article, not List of Final Fantasy titles#Novels and manga. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although an "official" webcomic, it only has one comic release thus far, it will only be published once a month, and extremely minimal mention outside of SE's own website. I was only able to find one site that was not a web forum mention it, and it was a FF website itself. At best it should be merged per Kariteh's comments above, but it most definitely is not notable enough for its own page. I would still vote delete. --Rolks 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Most certainly should be included in Final Fantasy XI, but until it has third party hosting, or notable published attention beyond SE's pandering, etc. then it cannot assert Notability as a seperate article. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It only has one comic release and thus little to no article content, but this should not count against it. Being an official SE webcomic, it is reasonable to assume that one day it will have plenty of content. Better to keep it as a stub now, and await the day that more content becomes available (which is predictable as it's updates are scheduled), than to delete it now and hinder/delay future creation of such an article. This is, of course, assuming that the article first can satisfy WP:N and WP:V --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Any official Final Fantasy work, even with one episode so far, would pretty much get an article for any other medium. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it somewhere, I don't really care where. If it turns out it doesn't actually deserve to be anywhere, it can be deleted from the merge target without AfD. Axem Titanium 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This WILL get larger; and if deleted, it will suffer from repeated speedy deletes and/or AFDs because it has been deleted before. (Justyn 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge per all of the above. Sjones23 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy related deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Adventure log is now mentioned at List of Final Fantasy titles, and the level of coverage there is currently about the max that can be sourced. Mango juice^talk 15:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete anything that is informative and non-offensive? I personally went, looked at the comic, was curious, and so came here, and was able to find out it is it the official comic for FFXI, which is what I was wondering about. All of you that sit on here and cry about things needing to be deleted are (Personal attack removed). Wikipedia's purpose is to be the most complete font of knowledge on the internet is it not? IT IS NOTABLE. 66.189.217.87 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Ksirafai[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (redirect recommended). Nabla 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D59 (chess opening)[edit]

I am renominating this page for deletion after the closure of a previous bundled nomination in this discussion where several editors indicated they wished the opportunity to individually considered. Since this page is nothing more than recounting of a particular chess opening, with no indication of any notability beyond that, I believe it violates WP:NOT#IINFO which is against instruction manuals. The article itself claims the analysis is on another page, Queen's Gambit Declined which really says nothing substantial more about it than it is a solid continuation. As there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of named and defined Chess openings, that isn't enough notability on its own. Thus I recommend it be deleted. Apologies if anybody considers this premature, but I am nominating this one article for consideration because it did receive some support for deletion and I think the previous bundled nomination was obvious a factor in it being kept. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of being any more notable than the thousands of other chess openings. Adambro 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Gambit Declined#Main variations. No harm in the redirect. The D59 means it has a name in MCO, which gives it some minor status, at least enough for a redirect. Also, this was an opening played in the Spassky-Fischer match. Mango juice^talk 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, there's a link at D59 already. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mango, I think you mean ECO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the appropriate opening. YechielMan 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like I recommended for this particular article last time. An article which just defines the moves of a chapter in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, giving nothing on the basic strategy, is not viable. A redirect to QGD could work and wouldn't harm anything, but it's a highly unlikely search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Mangojuice --ALL IN (u t c m l ) 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Has been userfied. Marskell 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cable spaghetti[edit]

Unsourced, undocumented neologism. Delete per WP:NEO. Chardish 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defintely neologism, and would be more appropriate in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.Cromdog 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant violation of WP:NEO. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - What an interesting article. It would be a shame to lose it, so moving it outside the project space would probably serve best. I've had this kind of thing crop up before, and so have many other computer users out there, so there should be some kind of name for it, even if neologic. Failing userfication, BJAODN.--WaltCip 03:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done ;) - Chardish 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :D I won't object to a delete of the article itself.--WaltCip 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting and relevant article. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 10:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting and relevant article for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. But see, What's Next; Promising an end to cable spaghetti. New York Times. September 30, 1999. Group test - Wireless streaming - Multimedia unleashed. Listening to music and watching DVDs anywhere in your home without having to deal with cable spaghetti is now possible. Find out if wireless streaming devices deliver on their promise. Personal Computer World. May 1, 2005. -- Jreferee 05:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Jamie Smith (Reporter)[edit]

I'd like to know what "awards" this reporter has won. No sources, just claims, and I personally don't think he's notable. Delete. JHMM13 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he won a Pulitzer Prize. YechielMan 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable reporter for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. I believe the award was the 2006 Joe Snyder Award From Pennsylvania AP Broadcasters Association for Outstanding News Service in the State.[19] -- Jreferee 06:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carteret Mortgage Corporation[edit]

With apologies to User:Bnseman, who means no harm, I nominate this article for seeming like an advertisement or fan mail, or at least not NPOV. The company has 35,000 Google hits, and the claims in the article may make it notable, but I'm far from certain whether it meets WP:CORP. YechielMan 05:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another wonderful blogvertorial for an MLM scheme, from a non-noteworthy company. Rgds, - Trident13 09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up - Right now it reads as advertising, but meets notability standards, imo. Fishhead64 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suppose. Made the Inc. 500 and got written up in Inc., in American Executive, and elsewhere. Apparantly has a somewhat innovative business model, loan officers working from home. Herostratus 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources are cited. There is only a listing on Inc's website and after looking through many pages of google hits, I could only find advertising, an occasional press release and brokerage applications. Google news only had one hit, and that was a press release.--Kubigula (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (hot!) 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:NawlinWiki. YechielMan 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Owen[edit]

Appears non notable and original research. No attempt has been made to establish notability beyond job title. Information is non encyclopedic. LordHarris 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as a copyvio of http://www.id.iit.edu/news/idiom/engageid_11.03.06.html. YechielMan 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep this content. Whether it should be merged or moved or just stay where it is at is an editorial decision and no consensus to merge/move was reached on this discussion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of cremation in Singapore[edit]

This article covers a topic which is too narrow in scope. It is the work of a the NUS Scholars Programme, and while more than adequately referenced (actually a very good example of proper referencing), it still is a subject that is too esoteric and not notable enough to merit its own article. It reads more like a research paper, which is likely what it is. Realkyhick 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD by User:Realkyhick completed by Anthony Appleyard for the sake of tidyness at 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC). This missing AfD file was not in the deletion log.[reply]
- Sorry, system crashed in the process. My bad. Realkyhick 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - space is at a premium in Singapore, so cremation as means for dealing with those who have passed away is significant. The article is well referenced, and well written. It may need a bit of copyeditting to make read less like a school research project, but that isn't a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that most of these young people's articles will be deleted, I am inclined to allow this one. The scope is very narrow, but Wikipedia is not paper and it seems a valid hictorical subject. "Space is at a premium" - mention that in the article! -- RHaworth 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into death in Singapore. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 21:25Z
- Change to keep as sub-article to prevent seriously over-balancing the parent article. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-21 02:36Z
- Comment: Didn't even know there was a death in Singapore article. I could easily see this article merged into that one, though it would probably have to be shortened. Realkyhick 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "Death in Singapore". That's clearly the best solution. Cheers, Jacklee 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, though I feel bad for the person who attempts this. I'll try to help. nadav 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On second thought, there is nothing wrong with making this a subarticle of Death in Singapore. Wikipedia is not paper, and there is a lot of new material here. It is one of the only acceptable USP articles, though it does need cleanup. nadav 03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Move to Cremation in Singapore. Notable topic. It doesn't fit well into Death in Singapore which should focus on demographics and causes of death.--Vsion 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well half of the article says you're wrong. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 10:22Z
  - That's what's wrong with the article. --Vsion 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's what's wrong with your understanding of what the article is supposed to have. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 03:59Z
- Rename to Death customs in Singapore and expand scope to include burial. Identify differences in funeral customs among different ethnicity: chinese funeral wakes, muslim burial customs, etc. --Vsion 03:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well what's wrong with putting that in death in Singapore? The article doesn't have anything on those and you're already proposing to split things up with no overview. Some sort of summary style revolution, huh. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 03:59Z

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Vaughan[edit]

Biography of man of not proven notabilty, and badly written. It was speedied as {{db-nonsense}}. Anthony Appleyard 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Brownstein[edit]

this article should be deleted because it is blatant advertizing with misleading or incorrect statements Vancouverlaw 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could You enlighten us, which are the blatant advertizing parts, the ones with misleading statements and which are incorrect statements? Thanks, feydey 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the work he is doing would certain have been reported in professional and mass media. Details can be taken from his professional CV, but the major accomplishments must be sourced.DGG 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This reads like a corporate resume, particularly phrases like "A significant portion of Mr. Brownstein's practise is devoted to advice on commercial law, international business law and litigious matters. He is also responsible for overseeing the direction of their associated offices worldwide." But some of the statemsnts included would make him, IMO at least marginally notable if they are sourced. This needs to be cleaned up, and cut down, and what remain needs to be sourced. Then it will either be a keeper, or it will be clearer that it should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up the article a little, and sourced his election to the municipal council position. DES ^(talk) 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spoken personally to Mr. Brownstein, and we have resolved my concerns. I have also advised Mr. Brownstein that the cleaning up done by DES has made the article quite acceptable. Thank you DES and Mr. Brownstein.Vancouverlaw 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable lawyer for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. --

Jreferee 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and wiki-fied. Ryanrider 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has roughly the same claim to notablity as any reasonably succesful lawyer who has been in practice for any extended period of time.--Kubigula (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beelzebub in popular culture[edit]

Another effectively abandoned pop culture article. This one has a reasonable format I tried to impose on it a while back, with very limited annotations of items... however, the extreme lack of worthwhile items leads me to believe we shouldn't bother with an article here. The most important item, by far, is the reference to Beelzebub in the title of Lord of the Flies, but even that item doesn't have much importance to Beelzebub, although it's important to the book article. The rest are just not important to the topic of Beelzebub at all. The inclusion is pretty indiscriminate, too: apparently any mention of "Beelzebub" qualifies for inclusion on the list, as does any mention of a word that might be based on "Beelzebub". Mango juice^talk 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of the name in any "popular culture" context with no regard to the triviality or importance of the reference. Otto4711 13:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the phrase "in pop culture" has to actually mean something. It has to be ABOUT the character or object being discussed. Something named Beelzebub is not about him in pop culture. Another character called Beelzebub is not a pop culture reference. A song which uses the word "Beelzebub" in its title or lyrics is not necessarily about him. Furthermore, every single one of these claims should be referenced, or it should be deleted. --Haemo 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is where Beelzebub (disambiguation) takes the user, so some better planning is needed before this article is deleted. As an aside, in the space of an hour this is the third poorly thought out "pop list" Afd that I have found, all with the same noms / people voting delete. Obviously you guys are working on cleaning up useless trivia, but you need to either abstain from each others Afd's or be constructively critical of each others Afd's otherwise it gives a false sense of consensus. Check each others work rather than endorsing each others work. John Vandenberg 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Disambiguation-related discussion refactored to the talk page)

Per WP:MOSDAB, disambiguation pages serve a limited purpose: to help a user navigate to the aricle they're looking for. So, you have a point, and I'm going to go edit Beelzebub (disambiguation) to an appropriate version, and then its deletion will no longer be implied. But that's not exactly the topic of debate here: the point is more, should we have an article on Beelzebub in popular culture? Mango juice^talk 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the dab issue, a list of instances where 'Beelzebub' (and creative derivations of this name) is used in culture is IMO useful -- Beelzebub is a meme that began 4000 years ago as being just one god of a town and has grown to represent evil on all levels, as far as being a name for the lord of evil, Satan. This article concentrates on the references in the last 100 years, and the entries are not very detailed, but I dont find it hard to imagine someone making a GA out of this content, similar to Satan in popular culture. I would be comfortable with it being merged into Satan in popular culture. John Vandenberg 00:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to imagine a GA from this content. Satan, on the other hand, is a much, much more rich subject. However, a merge to there would just add a few items of trivia irrelevant to that topic. (For instance, the connection to Lord of the Flies wouldn't make sense to mention there, and the rest are pretty minor.) Mango juice^talk 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a bad article. Although, in comparison to the popular culture section in Gargolye, it suggests a disambiguation page should take priority. Why not redirect the page to its' disambiguation equivalent instead? In this case, there wouldn't be a loss of information now, would there? I'm anonymous
- This actually used to be the disambiguation page, and was moved to this title, because it was full of trivia about popular culture and didn't actually help people navigate to other pages with the same name. If we leave a redirect in place, I think it would be very bad, because the decent disambiguation page that exists now would start to collect garbage. It was a mistake to move this page, it should have just been edited down to an actual disambiguation page. Mango juice^talk 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (hot!) 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this relisted? The arguments for deletion are pretty clear and the arguments for keeping are incredibly poor. Delete this article already. Otto4711 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; indiscriminate/loosely connected list. Masaruemoto 05:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now includes an unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. Keep, reference, and clean up. -- Jreferee 06:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to? Because that's the problem here: the article is abandoned. It doesn't matter if the word "notable" has been added to the header, unless someone will bring the article into line with that. Mango juice^talk 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yondel Lewis[edit]

Nonnotable local character (i.e., crazy person); no sources. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, nom pretty much says it all. Lemonsawdust 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources indicating notability. Content of the article is original research. Mwelch 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Whoever tagged it had the right idea. YechielMan 00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-24 10:41Z

Parycopsis[edit]

The term "Parycopsis" occurs only in three related WP articles and nowhere else on the web: Parycopsis, Wraith, Pa-rahn heku. These references are mutually self-supporting but there's no other evidence for the existence of "Parycopsis" or its synonym "Pa-rahn heku". It's a hoax. andy 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It even reads like a hoax article. YechielMan 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pa-rahn heku[edit]

The term "Pa-rahn heku" occurs only in this article and one other, and nowhere else on the web. It's a hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parycopsis. andy 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, also. Lemonsawdust 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudos to the editors for doing the work to source the article and establish notability instead of relying on someone else to do so. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Rowe[edit]

Despite sources and books, is non-notable. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Eh, what? He is a notable academic by far, I don't know why he has no web presence, probably an old fashioned guy, but he breezes passed the relevant notability criteria. Specifically, "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." I think the Nick Trakakis link has enough links to reliable sources to establish this. --Merzul 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, and this doesn't happen very often... While he is sufficiently discussed by others, the utter lack of sources originating from the subject, something like a CV, makes it very hard to supply this with some biographical data. --Merzul 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Mwelch, there is now sufficient biographical information for this to be proper stub/start-class bio. --Merzul 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources and books is notable. feydey 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable per his books. I also just added some bio info. Mwelch 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobtability has nothing todo with having published books. --Jimmi Hugh 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um . . . when the book in question is one of the established standards in that particular course of study . . . yes, it does. Mwelch 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we also look at the publisher, and at the reviews. The publisher for the textbook is a leading textbook publisher; the publishers for the more scholarly works are perhaps the two highest quality university presses. Such publishers select the books that the publish on the basis of multiple peer-reviews from leaders in the subject. The acceptance of such a book is a recognition of professional notability. the ones who can best judge make the decision, and we record it. Further the article about his field in the reference work of highest academic standing repeatedly refers to him as expert. DGG 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made by Dr. Nick Trakakis (April 23, 2007): It is difficult to understand the controversy surrounding the entry on William Rowe, for (i) this entry is well-written (although it does require expanding), and (ii) Rowe is widely recognized as one of the foremost contemporary philosophers of religion.

WHAT?? Nick Trakakis, really?? Regarding the controversy here: there is absolutely no controversy! The deletion thing was added very early, and the article was then very short. It is almost certain that this article will be kept. But I'm now going to explore the authenticity of this comment, because I've actually been wanting to create an article about Nick Trakakis :) --Merzul 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caldari Frigate[edit]

Useless fancruft. There are hundreds and hundreds of skills in EVE, and not much to say about any one of them individually. This is like having an individual page for every Magic card. Ashenai 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 insufficient context, not useful. YechielMan 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NOT. This article would need plenty of work to just get to the level of an impermissible game guide. Blech. Ravenswing 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete consensus is for deletion with recreation if/when he plays at First Class level. Gnan garra 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Hughes (cricketer)[edit]

A mere club cricketer at this stage with only junior representative honours and no first-class cricket experience. This article could be reproduced should he meet notability guidelines in the future Mattinbgn/^talk 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News shows several articles referring to Hughes [20]. His club Western Suburbs has Michael Clarke a test player as a member of its squad so it is a fairly notable club. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If his club is notable, where's it's article is the obvious question (I know the answer, don't bother). A link to the competition even might help?Ga rr ie 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club cricket in Australia isn't English County Cricket. Bring him back when he plays ~~Sheffield Shield~~ Pura Cup.Ga rr ie 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, did captain Australia in a youth side on a tour, apparently. If a reliable source can be found, that should make him notable enough. Lankiveil 07:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Here's your WP:RS: http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/113/113415/113415.html. He only captained one of the three matches, by the way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. WikiProject Cricket normally interprets the guidance at WP:BIO to mean that the player should have played in a first-class or List A match, which Hughes hasn't yet done. I can't decide whether playing in a national youth side, even captaining it, is sufficiently notable. I'm going to raise this at WT:CRICKET too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:FOOTBALL frequently deletes youth footballers who are yet to reach first-team level, don't see why cricketers should be any different. Even if, in all probabability they will play first-class, they might go off and become a cleaner. We don't know yet, and so they should be deleted with no prejudice for re-creation. HornetMike 09:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think captaincy of a national representative team (even if only Under-19) makes him notable enough by a whisker. I was expecting to see him mentioned at Australian national cricket captains#Youth cricket, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Fails current WP:CRIC notability test but given his captaincy of a national representative team, he may be the exception to the rule. —Moondyne 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Changed my mind. The article is only a sub-stub and nothing is lost by its removal. indeed, there's not going to be a whole lot to write about anyway. When he moves to first-class there'll be more. —Moondyne 09:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if and when he plays major cricket in the Pura Cup or in ListA. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that the article should be recreated if and when Hughes plays at first-class / List A level. If he never does (which seems unlikely, but you never know) then I don't think he's really notable enough. Loganberry (Talk) 13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to I Love New York (TV series). Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Givens[edit]

Doesnt pick up more than 1,000 google hits. No avalible music. Only known for being on a show for 7 episode, not notable at all. Parys 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge information into the show's page if possible. Until he's done something more notable than a 7-episode stint on reality TV, WP:N guides my opinion in this direction. Lemonsawdust 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the reality show page. That page does not describe the contestants as far as I can see. Tizio 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to reality show page. Real96 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect. There is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 06:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Jreferee. The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee (The Office episode)[edit]

Simply inaccurate; NBC Universal has confirmed the remaining episodes for the third season of The Office, and this episode, which was made and remains without sources even proving it exists, is not on the list. Viewdrix 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As my first AfD, I didn't know how much detail to go into in the initial reasoning, but the full list of actual season three episodes can be found on List of The Office (US) episodes, and the specific source that confirmed the final episodes ("Beach Games" and "The Job") is here. I didn't go the speedy deletion route because, again, this is my first attempt to delete an article and I was unsure if it qualified, and also because, as seen by the "it'll probably air in the fourth season" justification found on the "Coffee (The Office episode)" page (as of this writing), it seems at least someone would disagree that it should be deleted. -- Viewdrix 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; until NBC officially confirm this is running some day, it is crystal-balling to second-guess them. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 22:27Z
Delete: There is no support for any of the information in the article; it appears to have been created as a prank (based on the Cocktails episode). The "fourth season" text was added only after the episode's purported air date had passed. -- Raymondc0 14:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Breaking (martial arts). WjBscribe 01:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking board[edit]

This article is fairly bad, a pile of text concerning the "breaking of boards" as a feat of human strength, and mentioning one record-holder. The reason I bring this here is to see if anyone knows where it might be redirected. Delete it, otherwise. Xoloz 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Breaking (martial arts). Redirect there and delete this :) Haukur 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. as above. Mystache 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the martial arts article on same, as noted above. Lemonsawdust 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangelove (computer game)[edit]

This is a non-notable topic, pertaining to a mod used in a computer game. Verifiability won't save this article, either, it's textbook fan cruft. This information can serve best in another host such as a gaming guide or on the official website, not on a general reader's encyclopedia. With this being said, I understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It is also not a collector of indiscriminate information or a publisher of original thought. WaltCip 22:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough in itself. All I can really see is having the reference to the film included in the film's trivia section. Beyond that, it doesn't hold up to WP:N. Lemonsawdust 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable game mod, fails WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NN. RGTraynor 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cairns Skate Plaza[edit]

While I am unsure what the notability guidelines for skate parks are, this article does not provide any evidence of notability to support its claim to be "one of the best skate parks in Australia". Mattinbgn/^talk 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1 unique ghit [21]. Mystache 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here to distinguish it from any other skate park (Andrew Wynne-Jones' amazing performance notwithstanding). I seriously doubt it cost $14M either. Euryalus 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible speedy. The article is unsourced and there doesn't seem to be any sources establishing notability. Capitalistroadster 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, costing 14 million dollars isn't an assertion of notablilty neither is an unreferenced claim at being the best in Australia (if it is - what pro skate competition is held there?)Ga rr ie 04:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see how it's different to my local skate park. Not notable. Lankiveil 07:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I doubt the notability of this article. Captain panda 03:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - doesn't appear notable. Orderinchaos 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE with Shock site.Herostratus 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Series[edit]

Not notable, uncited, contains some original research, and fails WP:WEB. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a totally charming article, but regrettably lacks citations. Andjam 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It is still an article in progress, many of the citations are from troll websites, and wikipedia blocks me from citing them. Any help to keep this page would be lovely. Just having problems finding reliable sources. Since posting up my opinion, I have decided to change it to Merge With Shock Site as it would at least contribute something. Unconscious 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shock site. There is not enough unique information that can't be added to the primary article for this kind of stuff. --pIrish 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Bucketsofg 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid[edit]

Of the previous four Afd’s, two were by sockpuppet accounts. The most recent nomination contained next to no arguments by an inexperienced editor and was judged as keep. The remaining afd was closed as keep due to the nomination being out of process, despite delete votes outnumbering keeps. As per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion I am renominating this article for further discussion.

Our aim is to explain complicated issues in an encyclopedic manner whilst attempting to be as neutral as possible. By having a page that discusses the Israeli-Palestine situation which is “Allegations of apartheid”, are we approaching that goal, or are we moving away from it? Are we creating a POV and content fork that aims to channel sentiment towards a certain conclusion that does not comply with the goals of a neutral encyclopedia. Does this title alone immediately distort analysis of a complex issue, and hence distort the content of the article itself making it inherently unencyclopedic and POV?

This article and other “apartheid” articles are nearly a year old. They have carried POV templates for much of their duration and have been in permanent dispute. Collectively the articles have been disputed by countless users – the majority in fact - from all corners of wikipedia and all political persuasions. Does this imply that wikipedia is succeeding in dealing with these topics in a satisfactory manner? Or does it show that these pages have failed to meet the aims of their creators and a change is necessary?

Some of the arguments presented in the past to keep these apartheid articles are that they are sourced, However we could source anything from Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state to Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship to Allegations that Belgium is boring. So that doesn’t wash. See...

Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state
Allegations that Guantanemo Bay is a gulag
Allegations that Iraq was a Stalinist state
Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship
Allegations that Belguim is boring
Allegations that the Catholic Church were nazi collaborators
Allegations that Britain is a totalitarian state
Allegations that Russia is a dictatorship
Allegations that Bolivia is a totalitarian dictatorship

All of these articles could be as well sourced and as legitimate as Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.

Some of the arguments presented elsewhere have stated that this article is written with a balanced view in mind. Nearly a year of POV tags, heated disputes and numerous complaints from users from all corners of wikipedia tells a different story. People might argue that as it is a controversial topic - it will inevitably draw POV tags. But that should be a sign that we should redress our approach to these topics - not blunder on regardless with articles in disarray. When topics are under dispute - we should work hard to find solutions to these problems, not become entrenched in block votes and partisan game playing. As far as I can see, the game is up.

Solution: This article should be deleted. It is notable and important that we detail this issue which is that people refer to Israeli policies regarding Palestinians as “apartheid”. But there are neutral pages already created which can (and on some occasions do) detail and address this. They include;

At present I believe the structure of this article inherently fails WP:NPOV, and there is no solution other than to delete. The problems with this and other articles are not going to go away until this happens. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most recent AFD was closed as keep on 4 April 2007, barely two weeks ago. I don't agree with the contention that poorly worded or otherwise dubious nominations imply somehow that WP:AFD has been unable to give this article a fair hearing. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do. The nomination was generic - was applied to a number of disperate articles and made virtually no arguments for the deletion of this article. Events surrounding afds since April 4 on other apartheid articles means that it is time to reevaluate.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, it's becoming a distraction. I only noticed earlier today that 20% of the reliable sources have been disappeared from the article in the past month, apparently due to the actions of some rather clever vandal. With editors actively trying to make the article less encyclopedic on one hand, and others nominating it for deletion for being unencyclopedic on the other, it's getting difficult to actually maintain the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Zleitzen. Speaking as someone who has now "voted" three times to delete the article in question (not counting this page, where I haven't voted yet, and the second nomination which was open for less than 40 minutes and was never seen by me or most of the other "involved" editors before it was shut down), I think the procedural irregularities involving the first four nominations have deprived the proposal to delete this article of having a fair hearing. The first nom was by the guy who started the article, under a fake name, only a few days after he created the article; the second was over almost before it began; the third was shut down improperly, in my opinion, with (as Zleitzen says) a majority in favor. The fourth was oddly written and was based on policies that did not really capture the issue, and was doomed because most people thought it was the fourth nomination, which it really wasn't because the three previous were not legitimate. I fear that this one will meet the same end, as it will be labeled the "fifth" nomination. I am afraid that Wikipedia is probably stuck with this awful article. 6SJ7 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are notable allegations; a Nobel Peace Prize winner wrote a book with an accusation of Israeli apartheid in the title. If they were merged, then either important information would be omitted, or the allegations would be such a large portion of the article as to represent undue weight. And I do think sourced, NPOV articles could be written on many of the subjects mentioned by the nominator as an intended reducio ad absurdum. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The details of the nobel prize winner's views are already detailed here in this standard article in a fashion that does not appear to be undue weight. So there isn't really a need for them to be forked into a problematic POV article here.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Crotalus was referring to the other Nobel Prize winner. But the subject of this article is neither Tutu's views or Carter's, but the thread that runs through them both and that is detailed in neither's article(s). Andyvphil 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. By its very existence this article is going to prove problematic, however as the above editor points out, by deleting the article Wikipedia is stating an equally WP:NPOV position. Sources: BBC [22] Jerusalem Post [23] Salon.com [24] and that's in a short persual of the available sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is removing a POV/content fork stating a POV position?(which I presume is what you meant) And as written above, we could source Allegations that Belgium is boring using the BBC [25], etc if we need to. The fact that an article is sourced does not mean it meets core policies.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd agree with you if this was a pure POV fork, but I believe that it is sourced sufficiently independently that it isn't. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not really the point though is it. Allegations that the Iraq war is a disaster could be independently sourced to the highest level, using numerous reliable sources and counter reliable sources that discuss whether the war is a disaster,[26] but it would still be a POV fork from Iraq War by its leading title.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [27].[reply]
Keep and a few of the hypothetical articles mentioned might also make appropriate WP articles. The one on Belgium, for example, seems to be a notable cultural theme being used consciously as a stereotype. DGG 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the allegations exist, and have been made by some very prominent people. The previous AfD was barely two weeks ago, this is getting tiresome. --Ezeu 10:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When a mainstream newspaper writes "UN accuses Israel of apartheid" ([28]), then the allegations are clearly notable, whether they are true or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons for nominating are not to dispute whether anything is true or not. It is to dispute whether this was an unneccessary content/POV fork that has damaged wikipedia. It obviously has. I have never edited a single article related to Israel, but when my routine edits to make Tourism in Cuba a good article began to be reverted because of this article - then there is a problem. The problem is that this a POV fork that has set a precedent for a plethora of damaging articles that isolate and slant an issue. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view : "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."-- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at the three articles you claimed this was a POV fork of, and I am not convinced. The Human Rights article discusses human rights in general, not just the condition of the Palestinians, and the "apartheid" section is only a paragraph long, citing this as the main article. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict article is more of a historical article. The barrier article is about a specific structure. None of those articles covers what this article covers. As for POV, a NPOV dispute is not a reason to delete the full article, even though the debate can be vigorous and heated. I see a "criticism" section here which tries to being some balance in the article, and the whole thing is remarkably well-sourced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason why you are not finding details covered here in those article is because its already been forked to this article. Unfork it back to encyclopedic articles, delete this article, and end its impact on scores of articles throughout the site - which have taken the precedent that any allegations can be forked to their own article - and have only resulted in what someone above described as "tiresome distractions". -- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Zleitzen presents an articulate case on how the very existence of the article is POV and unencyclopedic, and additionally gives an excellent recourse for distributing legitimate sourced info in an NPOV way in more neutral pages. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crotalus horridus RaveenS 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is a problem with Wiki policy when articles can just keep getting put up for deletion every couple of weeks. People who are implacably opposed to the existence of an article can just keep trying until they finally get lucky and manage to get a majority. I think an article should not be able to be nominated for deletion more than once in, say, six months. This nomination seems particularly gratuitous given that an AFD on the "allegations of apartheid" page, which is much less noteworthy, was just defeated by a 2 to 1 majority. Gatoclass 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of keep votes on that article were made by Israel focussed editors who object to this article - but wish to retain balance by having the other article(s). So in this weird game that has evolved since the unfortunate creation of these allegations articles - and the clearly dubious shenanigans that have surrounded the previous two or three apartheid afd's - it is worth testing the waters again to see where consensus has shifted, which can change in the few weeks. The conspicuous absence here of Israeli focussed editors who have fought tooth and nail to delete this article is of note. And there is obviously a problem with wiki-policy when coordinated blocks of editors can swoop in or out of afd and unrelated merge debates based on strategies to affect the outcome of this article. As I've stated in the past, this isn't going to end until a satisfactory outcome is found that doesn't impact on unrelated non-Israeli articles - and as this article appears to be the locus of the problem, a solution needs to be found here.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What "coordinated blocks of editors" do you refer to, and when did they happen? Could it be that those "Israeli focussed editors" have accepted the consensus evident in previous AFDs? --Ezeu 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Essentially, "consensus" has broken down and been subverted on most of these afds. Whether the Israeli focussed editors have or haven't accepted whatever consensus you believe was present before - swooping in en masse to oppose unrelated merges and deletions of material referring to Latin America on the basis of their acceptance of decisions made on this article helps no one. Something is broken. And if people don't realise that it's broken or think that it isn't a problem, then perhaps they should borrow my watchlist of over 4000 articles. Then perhaps they'd realise how many topics and articles have changed in the year since this article was created, and what a bad precedent this has set. Vote to fix this damage to wikipedia. Not to compound it.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well said. The continued existence of this article is an embarrassment...it makes Wikipedia look more like a propaganda fest rather than an encyclopedia, and it promotes the creation of other articles like it by setting a precedent. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an issue well-discussed in the media and elsewhere (see all the sources above). But move to Israel apartheid analogy as a more accurate name. —Ashley Y 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep The existance of this article shouldn't preclude covering anything in Zleitzen's Cuban Tourism article or elsewhere. If bad decisions have been made to that effect (give me a diff, Z) he needs to find some way to address that directly, because this process isn't going to do it for him. And he's wasting our time. Andyvphil 22:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no more direct way to address this problem than to call for the deletion of the article that created it. And having had more time wasted on this farce than most whilst researching and writing another article I hoped to raise to featured article status, I don't plan to waste anymore working on articles that are impacted by this article until this business is resolved. Interfering with editors' efforts to improve other articles is the real waste of time. You ask for diffs? Start your research here, and here's another "consensus" decision that looks more like a Cold war era UN vote than a genuine debate.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you've cited is failed attempts to delete articles. What I asked for was some evidence that your "efforts to improve" Tourism in Cuba had been adversely affected. In the cites the worst I see you alleging is a denied direct redirect. Andyvphil 11:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - When you've been around long enough, and worked on enough articles to try and bring them to a half decent standard, you'll realise that people coming out of nowhere to revert routine edits and changing the context of material to suit some unrelated issue concerning a completely different country, then it is not helpful, and is disruptive. My goal here is to improve Caribbean and Cuban articles for readers. If I can't do that without an unrelated dispute concerning Israel having a bearing, and without a bunch of Israeli focussed editors swooping in to dictate merges and content based on something to do with this article, then there is a problem. Likewise issues concerning race in Brazil. If a proper debate on content cannot be had without it being part of a strategic game concerning this article, there is a problem. And it needs to be solved. - Zleitzen^(talk) 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, at least these are diffs, but they don't support your point. Looks like Jayjg came to your article to fix a link broken by a rename and thought the article should have an inline link from the paragraphs that cover "tourist apartheid" to the article covering the subject in greater detail, rather than just a note in "see also" at the bottom. So he added it, using the often confusing (and therefor inappropriate) "main" template. You had a bit of back-and-forth about whether or how to do it, and in the end he got the current "Further information:" inline cite rather than "Main article:". A very modist tiff, and the result looks right to me. Only your amour propre as "owner" of the article was damaged, not the article itself. I assure you that the resulting campaign more closely resembles Don Quixote's than Agamemnon's... your snowball melted long ago and your delusional quest is just wasting everyone else's time. And yours. Andyvphil 13:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You may view the efforts to find solutions for problems surrounding these articles as Quixotic. But there is no reason why this deadlock will continue any more than other more entrenched deadlocks, which are resolved in wikipedia all the time, something you perhaps will learn with more editing experience. When this situation is resolved, we may return and review whether my "quest" has been "dillusional".-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd first like to return to the subject of whether there's any problem that needs fixing. I've offered my interpretation of your diffs. That's what all this is about??? Andyvphil 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Zleitzen, you've said that the current allegations-of-apartheid mess, which originated with this article nearly a year ago, has resulted in disruption for the editors of Cuban articles. From looking at Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid I get the impression you are probably right, and it is noble of you to try to address the problem at its root, which is Allegations of Israeli apartheid. However, given the current bizarre climate in which the most vociferous critics of Allegations of Israeli apartheid don't even show up for its AfD (wtf?), it would probably be easier to more directly try to undisrupt the building of Cuban articles. Discussion to be continued at Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid. Kla'quot 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Update: The critics have shown up now. Kla'quot 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't revisited Allegations of apartheid in Cuba since the early phases of what had once been a blantant WP:POINT but the more I look at it this is a form of apartheid, i.e. a government enforce separation of two populations so the government can maintain its regime. It seems to go beyond the classic description of Club Med: a holiday in other people's misery. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that is what the fork suggests, however the situation is far more complex than that. Your conclusion illustrates how unsatisfactory these articles are explaining complex issues. They deny context and isolate situations from their structural causes resulting in a POV distortion. In situations like Cuba and Israel, where distortions for political reasons already complicate any representations, we should tread even more carefully.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Too many reliable sources. Why keep Allegations of Cuban, Brazilian and Saudi Arabian Apartheid? Has Desmond Tutu commented on those? The attempt to delete this article is a disgrace to Zionist editors that are a part of it.Kritt 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Read anything written by reporters who have the courage to live in Arab villages in Israel (Jeremy Cook among others) instead of those that never leave their hotel rooms in Tel-Aviv, have papers delivered to their doorstep and simply rephrase them. Lixy 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why are we going through this for the fifth time? --John Nagle 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for whatever it's worth, per nom and per my comments the last few times, and many of my comments on the talk page. If I had to boil it down to one sentence, the problem is that the article is inherently POV and its purpose is to have an attack on Israel in the title of an article. Zleitzen is correct that this allegation can be handled in other articles. It does not need its own article. 6SJ7 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Political status of the Palestinian people as suggested by Fred Bauder half an eternity ago, and rewrite to address questions other than "Is it apartheid or isn't it?". I don't think this article is currently a POV fork, but it is question-framing fork. Per Zleitzen, "our aim is to explain complicated issues in an encyclopedic manner whilst attempting to be as neutral as possible." Kla'quot 04:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Political status of the Palestinian people is fine if it is about Politics of Palestine. This article is about the Apartheidish nature of Israeli politics. --Ezeu 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would support a move as well. I recall Fred suggesting a particular name that I thought was acceptable, but I got the impression that nobody was interested, since as far as I remember, nobody said anything about it. 6SJ7 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen, I sympathize with some of your concerns. Some folks here probably think that the "allegations of Israeli apartheid" should stay because it documents an important and notable critique of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. As shown in a recent analysis[29] I did of article bias though, far from doing so, the page is so one-sided as to read almost like an advertisement for Israeli tolerance and high-mindedness.

It's for that reason apart from any other that I've sometimes thought deletion would be the best course. The problem though, is that doing so effectively reinforces bad behaviour. If editors are to be rewarded for petulantly sabotaging articles they don't like, or by creating multiple examples of WP:POINT, where does it stop? After "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which page will be targeted by such tactics next?

What I'm saying is that I think there's an issue of principle here. If the allegations themselves are notable enough to warrant their own page - and in this case I believe they are - then one cannot agree to deletion just because some editors apparently can't restrain their desire to try and undermine it. Gatoclass 05:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an article that about which one thought deletion would be the best course, so that purported behavior of allegedly Zionist editors is not rewarded, appears to be a violation of WP:POINT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doright (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Hello Gatoclass. I haven't followed the discussions on the talk page of the Israel article. But I have no doubt that there has been an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about proceedings since the creation of this article. However, I imagine that the concerns of many people including the Israel focussed editors is that this is simply too complex a situation to be framed simply by the rhetorical pejorative itself.

- In this round of debates (4-5 I think), there have been several interesting suggestions, concepts and ideas thrown around. Although I have lambasted the original creators of this article elsewhere, and continue to take a dim view of the WP:POINT activities that have sprung up in its wake, the motives behind each of these acts is understandable in a certain light. Even if they have resulted in this unsatisfactory scenario. The people above who are complaining about this afd wasting time are missing the point of the debate and discussion process, and the concept of gauging the mood of involved parties. There has been much food for thought on how to proceed. The over-riding conclusion, of course, is that we do have to proceed. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an insightful comment, Gatoclass. AfD, whether for one article or all articles at once, does not address user conduct issues. RfC is a better venue for curbing the WP:POINT problem. To the pro-Israel editors I'll say this: We have a series of one-sided articles which make other countries such as Brazil and Cuba look as heavily criticized and apartheid-ish as possible, while great efforts have been made to downplay the analogy as applied to Israel. This is, for any reader smart enough to see what's happening, actually bad PR for Israel. Kla'quot 06:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatsmore, as noted in previous debates, the volume of available media which will analyse or counter the credibility of these claims about Israel far outweighs that of poorer nations. Meaning that in some cases, there is no possible way to find reliable sources to counter various random, speculative, propagandistic comparisons to apartheid. So whilst Israel editors were able to draw from a deep well to add to the article described above, an editor attempting balance on (say) Latin American subjects is scrambling around in the dark with a broken article that cannot be improved or balanced. There should be no surprises that this Israel article is now 80% in favour Israel. If you create and support an article that is poorly framed and is essentially set up to be a list of sources using a rhetorical pejorative - or in my view: people shouting in room - it should come as no surprise that the people who shout the loudest are the most often heard. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Personally, I think that at least some of the newer "allegations" articles could be deleted just on the grounds of non-notability. It's hard to see how an article on "Brazilian apartheid" can be justified just on the basis of a couple of throwaway quotes from someone. By contrast, there have been numerous books by qualified academics written specifically on the subject of Israeli apartheid. "Brazilian apartheid" deserves a few lines in the umbrella "allegations of apartheid" article I guess, but an article of its own? Gatoclass 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as I said on the 4th nomination... "A bad faith nomination without a leg to stand on, as there is an abundance of sourced material in the article. The problem is POV-pushing, which in itself is not a reason for deletion." Lately, the article has been virtually assaulted by a handful of bad-faith editors. What is really needed is a wholescale reversion to ~Mid-March, and begin again. Tarc 17:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you represent another user who hasn't addressed any of the problems surrounding this article, merely believing that as something is sourced, it meets policy. This assumption is false as borne out by numerous arguments here and elsewhere, and has been proved by ongoing deletions of inherently POV articles since wikipedia began. What is really needed is a solution to end these problems, not compound them.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't put words in my mouth, son. What I "represent" is someone who is tired of agenda-pushers who simply cannot stand to see this properly-sourced article exist, and are doing everything in their power to get rid of it. POV is not a reason to delete an article. Period. Tarc 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - it is clear that Israeli apartheid exists. even if one doesn't agree, the issue is still very relevantDean Sayers 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense and you're an ignorant. Please be familiar with South African apartheid as a political and legislative segregation tool before you make such allegations. --Gabi S. 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot keep civil, then kindly keep your mouth shut. This discussion is contentious enough as it is without blatant insults. Tarc 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an insult. Dean Sayers clearly lacks knowledge about what apartheid is. --Gabi S. 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps he read the article we are discussing and made up his own mind? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' "the very existence of the article is POV and unencyclopedic: - I have said this a year ago and was banned from the article. Zeq 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge 2 or 3 paragraphs into Allegations of apartheid. Zleitzen is correct in challenging the notion that just because something is sourced, it meets policy -WP is not a soapbox. <<-armon->> 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While WP:SOAP forbids "propaganda or advocacy of any kind" it specifically allows that "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." -- Kendrick7^talk 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's clear the "attempt" failed. <<-armon->> 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the Allegations of apartheid article is no better than this. In fact it's even more slanted and poorly designed so I don't think that is a solution. The absurd article only survived a deletion review due to an effort to portray it's deletion as "out of process", followed by strategic partisan vote stacking in the second debate. I'm beginning to favour the creation of Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel or something similar, which would have indepth analysis of this "apartheid" - accompanied by wider coverage of the difficulties faced by Palestinians in Israel.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that there is a significant faction of WP editors who feel these allegations are notable. Despite your cogent arguments, I seriously doubt this article will be deleted. I suggest the merge as a compromise wherein the editors who feel this topic simply must be addressed in it's own article can write a short neutral description of the allegation. But I doubt that will fly either. <<-armon->> 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to favour the creation of Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel or something similar - Zleitzen

Comment In theory not a bad idea I suppose, but in practice, the vaguer the topic, the more subject the article becomes to bloat. This is especially true, I find, of articles on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, where everyone seems to want to have the last word.

I guess I might support a change in name of the article if a suitable name could be found, but I can see a name like "Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel" soon turning into a content jungle. Perhaps "Human rights of Palestinians under Israel occupation"? Something like that might keep the focus reasonably narrow. Indeed, it would probably enable getting rid of all the material in the article that is currently devoted to the apartheid analogy within Israel itself, which might be an advantage.

At the same time, it would allow for a seamless expansion of content into areas such as property law, home demolitions and other Israeli practices which may not strictly have been used in the apartheid analogy itself (although I'm sure they have been). Perhaps there could also be a companion article entitled "Human rights of Israeli Arabs" or "Human rights of minorities in Israel" dealing with the situation there.

Before I'd agree to such a name change though, I think it might be useful to have some sort of agreement with the regular pro-Israeli contributors about the content and structure of such an article. We really do need to avoid as many acrimonious disputes as we can manage, and a prior agreement might be a good way to achieve that. Gatoclass 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Human rights of Palestinians under Israeli occupation idea. Note that we already have Arab citizens of Israel which covers much of what's in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Kla'quot 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grief, that Arab citizens of Israel article looks gruesome. One line paragraphs, dispute tags dotted around, and a vast, Joycean, Allegations of discrimination section which mirrors many of the themes of this article. I've had a look at a few of the more political Israel articles since this affair began and some of them just look like the aftermaths of an editing apocalypse. No wonder editors have appeared so jaded and cynical in these debates having to face those articles on a regular basis.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right Zleitzen! I have argued for an end to the claim-counterclaim format that so many of these articles finish up as, because the results are about as encyclopedic as watching a spat between two badly behaved children.

I think a lot of the mess that persists in these articles could just be fixed by everyone agreeing not to put counterclaims immediately after claims, but instead having totally separate for and against sections, wherein each faction gets to put their own side of the debate at length and without interruption.

On second thoughts, there probably *are* viable reasons for putting criticism directly after charges in some circumstances. The problem is that there's too much of it and it's done in a totally haphazard way. It's just that it's very hard to think of a way to fix the problem *other* than having totally separate sections. Gatoclass 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I describe these articles as being like being stuck with two people shouting at each other in a room. Just rubbish!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because User:Zleitzen's arguments make a lot of sense. The word "apartheid" should never be used in any context except as it applies to its point of origin, South Africa itself! Apartheid was a unique form of racial segregation that existed in South Africa. It was not called "Nazism" (a unique political ideology in itself) and it was not called "Fascism" (although it had elements of it), but Apartheid a unique Afrikaans word that captured that ideology's origin's and connections with the Afrikaners who created it in South Africa ONLY! -- and NOT all Afrikaners supported it either, such as the famous Field Marshal Jan Smuts. (To really understand Apartheid's uniqueness, one would need to know more about Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd its chief proponent and architect, who eventually also became South Africa's Prime Minister democratically elected by the white electorate -- and how many supposedly well-informed and intellectual people have even a shred of knowledge about all of this?) The trend to play fast and loose with these labels and specific political terminology is recent and in this case is clearly meant to besmirch Israel and reeks of antisemitism, plain and simple. Let's take another example, such as Nazism, which is identified strictly with Nazi Germany and the Nazi Party and with any group that called itself by that name or wished to be openly combined with them, such as one sees in Category:Nazi parties, BUT at no time does any rational and reliable scholar call Spain under Franco Nazi Spain or his party the Falange as the Nazi Falange, no matter how many similarities there may have been. On the contrary, care is taken by NPOV writers and scholars to clarify that while the Falangists and the Nazis were Fascists, yet the Falangists are called Falangsist and not Nazis. Similarly, Italian fascism is not called Italian Nazism and the Fascist National Party is not called the Nazi Fascist National Party or the Nazi National Party (no matter how many times Hitler and Mussolini got together and even signed treaties) because true scholars and historians do not play fast and loose with terminology to score points. Likewise, another of the closest of the Nazi's allies, Imperial Japan is not called Nazi Japan and they are not accused of Allegations of Japanese Nazism (no matter how wicked they may have been to other nations) simply because as scholars it is to our advantage NOT to mix labels and start "cursing out" those we dislike, as it does not help us in our quest for understanding, through accurate description and explanation, as to what the true nature of each movement and nation really was or is. Thus, in this case, articles about so-called "allegations" of a "Apartheid" attributed to any state or party, not just Israel, make Wikipedia look silly and manipulated, and serve only to confuse and politicize as propaganda vehicles like so many pawns without brains not helping to create any clearer understanding of the unique issues and struggles that upderpin the complex and unique Arab-Israeli conflict and its sub-set, the equally complicated Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are the two true neutral model names for articles connected to them, see Category:Arab-Israeli conflict and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's time to stop the reckless tomfoolery when it comes to abusing and bandying about the term Apartheid, and put it back where it belongs: in its South African cage ONLY! Thank you.IZAK 09:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The word "apartheid" should never be used in any context except as it applies to its point of origin

- Fine, but that is only your opinion and not the opinion of the numerous reliable sources who have chosen to use it in other than the original context. There are numerous academic books and articles devoted specifically to the subject of Israel as an apartheid state, and many more which make the comparison in passing, which means that Wiki is amply justified in recording the phenomenon. Gatoclass 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gatoclass: Sure, and there are also many so-called "academic books and articles devoted specifically to the subject of Israel" that call it a Nazi state (which opens the door to the likes of Allegations of Israeli Nazism) or a Fascist state (should we welcome: Allegations of Israeli Fascism?) or that Jews, with Israeli Jews at the helm, control the USA government via the Zionist Occupation Government (so does that mean that Wikipedia should merge Politics of Israel into the Zionist Occupation Government article now?) Or how about the fact that Israel is accused of "genocide" should we also include Allegations of Israeli genocide? Let's face it, Israel-haters and Israel-bashers are plentiful out there. There are even many Israelis and Jews who are self-hating enough to think that they need to self-flagellate in the media and in academia, but it's fine, Israel is a democracy and allows it, unlike Russia which is now systematically killing journalists, see List of journalists killed in Russia or China's policies, such as Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and then forces Yahoo! to snitch and then arrests dissidents (see, case of Wang Xiaoning) yet there are no articles (yet) about Allegations of Russian persecution or Allegations of Chinese oppression. At any rate, the "just because others say it and use it" argument does not always work, and often defies reality and simple logic, since at one time or another all sorts of groups have come up with their own ways of slandering Jews and now its Israelis to boot. There are even plenty of people out there who believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (concocted by the Czar's secret police, later publicised and printed by Henry Ford, and nowadays pushed and spread by the Saudis and their ilk) is a very "good book" and is "100% accurate", so does that mean that Wikipedia will soon see articles about Allegations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Israel or Alllegations of Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the United States or wherever Jews live? Somewhere the line needs to be drawn between fact and outright propaganda. IZAK 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Tutu and Carter and many prominent others had made Allegations of Israeli Nazism the subject might well deserve an article, or, better, Allegations that Zionism is Racism with "further information" jumps to one or both child articles as length and due weight grounds make appropriate. So, the allegations are slurs. But notable slurs. Shouldn't Zionist Occupation Government exist? Andyvphil 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Andy: Tutu and Carter, are no friends of Israel, and they have no right to coin any negative phrases that border on slurs and blood libels against Israel or Jews, and no responsible people should accept them and certainly not support or propagate them. As for Zionist Occupation Government, it has as much right to "exist" as does Untermensch and Übermensch as long as it's made perfectly clear just how toxic those concepts are and just how delusional people must be to believe such sick stuff coming from feeble and prejudiced minds (note, that Tutu and Carter are ardent Christians, so whatever they say is biased automatically.) No-one in their right mind would propose that just because there are powerful and notable venomous snakes in the world so therefore they and their venom should become the "gold standard" by which to judge anything of value and importance to this good world of ours. IZAK 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But Tutu and Carter didn't coin it. The article documents usage going back to 1967, at least. If you didn't know that maybe the article needs to exist to inform you of that history. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. Andyvphil 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Tutu and Carter are among its chief promoters. In 1967 nobody but extreme left-wing radicals may have first used it, together with calling South Africa "Nazi" and a "Reich" and Israel was called Lord alone knows what after it hit the devil out of the Arabs in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 until 2006 when Hizbulah was dealt a defeat, none of the name-calling was accurate nor did those labels help further the rational political dialogue then and subequent understanding. Do we want to claim to "understand" things like babies whose minds were controlled, then by the Kremlin and now by radical Islamist agitators and their far-leftist cohorts on Western campuses and the media? You know what, the only thing "I don't like" is ignorance and lies, oh and have I mentioned that I don't like Israel-bashing and anti-Semitism? IZAK 08:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: IZAK's comments above, Crime of apartheid demonstrates that the term is used in contexts beyond its point of origin. Bondegezou 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Africa's Apartheid was only a replica of what Canada did to it's Aboriginal population, and Israel simply looked at these techniques and replicated them. So their is a connexion to 'Apartheid' and it is an appropriate lable. --Mista-X 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change name--yidi 11:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --YoavD 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as per IZAK. The wide use of the word apartheid around the globe doesn't justify its misuse that belittles the human rights violations and atrocities that existed in South Africa. In contrast, while there is a 'conflict' between Palestinians and Israelis, there is no systematic discriminating apartheid policy. The allegations of apartheid exist, but a) certainly don't deserve a seperate article, b) I don't think that 'allegations of...anything' should be on WP. --Shuki 12:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete or have it renamed or perhaps include a paragraph in Arab-Israeli conflict or somewhere else. There are no points of comparison between apartheid and the policies carried out by Israel in its own country regarding its own citizens. First, apartheid is a term defined by afrikaners, in an afrikaner-against-black context, which is WAY different to what happens in Israel. Blacks had no right for a passport and could not even vote in Apartheid South Africa. There is only one parliament in Israel, in which arabs, druze and jews all vote, sometimes even for the same candidate! If an arab woman is pregnant, she is attended by jews or arab doctors alike, and in the same hospital a jewish woman go. There are no "vir gebruik deur joods" (for use only for jews, in afrikaans) signs on beaches, trains, buses or supermarkets in Israel, if I remember well! And still, can any of this possibly have occurred under apartheid? Of course not. The comparison is really offensive --JewBask 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and replace with REDIRECT to Arab-Israeli conflict. -- Olve 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mainly per Croatulus horridus. The allegations are notable and well-sourced. The best thing to do if people don't like the allegations is to go through and find reliable sources that explicitly counter them(my impression is that there are many of them). I must also register my extreme displeasure about how many of the opinions here seem to be distorted by peoples political opinions and not by Wikipedia policy. Dean Sayers' comment in particular is so POV that it isn't funny. JoshuaZ 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Changing opinion to delete given Zleitzen's comment below and other comments. I still am disturbed by the large amount of POV on both sides that is being interjected here and still see Sayers' comment as the most blatant and worst example. JoshuaZ 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think we've established that the claim/counter claim format you endorse is a very poor way to write encyclopedia articles. And is certainly not working in this context. Not to mention the systemic bias it injects into issues if people start viewing apartheid as a series of claims against a variety of subjects, some of whom - such as Kazakhstan - obviously do not have the quantity of coverage to counter any random allegation made in some Western website. These articles demand editors act as combatants or lawyers in defence of the accused rather than act as collaborative writers working to explain a complex issue. The results on these page demonstrate that these methods are not good enough. There are good, illustrative ways to write about complex issues, these are used all the time in wikipedia. Why endorse this failed method?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is mostly a collection of single-sided political propaganda rather than an encyclopedia article. Yevgeny Kats 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per an incredibly thorough noomination. The article is inherently PoV, has been tagged for most of its existence and what reputable content there is can be included in another article. The fact is, allegations of Israeli apartheid are based on a false premise. To retain this page is an insult to Wikipedia. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This proposal keeps coming up again, and I think this is an abuse of procedures. As I wrote on a previous occasion, "the term is in wide use, there are weighty arguments supporting the usage, there are scholarly works using the term. And unfortunately, the phenomenon also exists. If I thought you could get rid of something by deleting the Wikipedia article, there's a lot that comes to mind." The article should be rewritten, and I would prefer to remove the "allegations" and simply call the article Israeli Apartheid. I am opposed to removing well-researched and documented material on a clearly notable matter. RolandR 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is your opinion that the phenomenon exists, and it may be others' opinion that the term is used purely to demonize Israel for sinister purposes. --Leifern 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This AfD should not be about whether the analogy is an apt one, but about whether use of the analogy or debate over use of the analogy is notable. Those who think the phenomenon exists and those who think it is used to demonise Israel both agree that there is something to talk about, ergo they should agree that a Wikipedia article on the matter is appropriate. Put your efforts, I suggest, into improving the article's content. Bondegezou 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but based on a broader discussion: This is an article about political rhetoric. There is little dispute about the factual basis for the allegations; what is disputed is whether the term "apartheid" is a valid interpretation or comparison of the intent and effects of what is happening. If we are going to allow articles about one stream of political rhetoric or another, we need to avoid our own rhetorical fallacies in determining notability, and appeals to authority constitute one such fallacy. I happen to think political rhetoric is a fascinating subject, but it's one where angels fear to tread. --Leifern 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete* Propaganda article. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's not a reason to delete. Any article of a political nature can be labeled propaganda be people who WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The two state solution article is propaganda too if you don't agree with it; as it will neither create two viable states nor solve anything, maybe that should be moved to the alleged two-state solution for balance.... -- Kendrick7^talk 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, I didn't label it propaganda. This is an article about an assertion that can't be proven or disproven, because it draws a comparison between two separate phenomena. The comparison may or may not be useful, or accurate, or even relevant; but there's no question that it's being used to make a political point and is without question an example of rhetoric. I can find countless other examples in other controversies. My point is that we need to distinguish interpretations from accusations, rhetoric from specific acts, etc. --Leifern 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 'allegations' is a great term to make from everything an encyclopedic entry. Hence, allegation of Bush being stupid. allegation of.. etc. One would also open an entry allegation of Palestianians continious intention to kill all Jews. I do not want wiki to contain any of these empty ergumentative nonsense. YechezkelZilber 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination--Shrike 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not look in the least encyclopedic. It is an unholy mishmash, a ragged collection without any content.--Redaktor 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Israeli Apartheid is a far more prevalent term in use in academia and the press than are allegations of Apartheid applied to Cuba and Brazil. Why aren't those that would delete the Israel article, calling for the deletion of the others (i.e. Cuba and Brazil)? See box to right below, which of these articles has the most relevance and reliable sources like Desmond Tutu and South African anti-apartheid experts and activists? Allegations of Israeli Apartheid does, by far.

{{Allegations of apartheid}}Kritt 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sorry four AfDs on one article is way too many and the last one looked quite legit... last time I voted keep but now its a strong keep on principle. Time to listen to the community and stop this nonsense. --BozMo talk 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are allegations of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia -- judging by this breed of articles, they're clearly unfounded. --tickle me 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was created as a WP:POINT, was nominated twice for AfD by strawman sockpuppets, and after almost a year, 3100 edits, and an ArbCom case, is no better than it ever was, and only getting worse. It took an outside like Zleitzen to expose why this topic is inherently non-encyclopedic. -- Y not? 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an obviously important topic.--Mista-X 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy, obvious, etc., etc. keep. Zlietzen offers the most articulate and principled opposition yet to the existence of this article, but ultimately it's sophistry to say that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is the "source" of the organized POINT-pushing damage carried out in articles pertaining to Latin America. The source of that damage is those carrying it out, period. This article's subject is different from "Belgium is boring" or "Cuban tourism policies are like apartheid" in that it's been the subject of sustained comparison in many works and through many lenses – historical (Benvenisti), moral (Carter), pragmatic (Adam and Moodley), etc., the list goes on. More important, or at any rate more relevant to the objections Zlietzen raises, is the fact that the comparison itself has drawn great attention from journalists and scholars alike. This is manifestly not the case in the gaggle of "related" articles googled up by Israel-focussed editors making their POINT against this one. Even in the most well-sourced and serious of those articles, the one about the Cuban tourist industry, the "apartheid" rhetoric is incidental to the controversial issue presented there. In none of the sources given is the "apartheid" meme itself the issue (the way it so incontestibly is in the wealth of RS-material for this article). Those arguing about the human-rights issues at play in the Cuban tourist industry aren't arguing about the aptness of the comparison, or listing historical similarities and differences between Cuba and South Africa, or whatever (South Africa, in fact, is barely even mentioned). They're arguing about whether Cuba's tourist-industry policies are wrong, morally impermissable, a sign of gross hypocrisy and discrimination among the socialist left, or whether they are economically justified. "Apartheid" is a stage prop in this debate, but it isn't the subject. And the Cuba article is the best of that bad lot, bear in mind. According to the utterly ridiculous and execrable "parent article," Desmond Tutu by definition made an "allegation of apartheid" merely by telling the Tibetan people they were "on the winning side"! It makes no sense to conflate such junk with the prominent, extensive, and historically detailed discussion that is the subject of this article. I appreciate your good-faith attempt to deal with a metastasizing problem, Zlietzen, but the way to deal with that problem is to confront the editors who are causing it; sophistry of this sort doesn't help.--G-Dett 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- G-Dett - I don't think anyone would question the premise that everything Israel does gets more criticism and condemnation than anything anyone else does, and far out of proportion to the magnitude and depth of human suffering involved. If you want to get into that discussion - why Israel is demonized so out of proportion to even the sins she's allegedly committing - that should be an article in its own right. But if this article is about a) the character of Israel's policy, the article is inherently POV; or b) the basis for the political rhetoric, then we should discuss the rhetoric itself, not who happens to bring it up. To say that many and interesting people indulge in the rhetoric is entirely irrelevant. --Leifern 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article itself already suggests several reasons. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think no one questions your opening premise, Leifern, then you are not in touch with the debate surrounding Israel-Palestine. Many – and I count myself among them – argue that Israel, because of the unique atrocities the Jewish people have historically suffered, is granted much greater leniency with regards to its human-rights violations than any other modern Western liberal democracy.--G-Dett 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting that you should characterize Israel as a modern Western liberal democracy. This is not what a title like Israeli apartheid would imply. I am quite familiar with the shrill accusations thrown at Israel, have looked at the facts that underly them, and find that most of them are extremely prejudicial. --Leifern 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course Israel is a modern Western liberal democracy. It has a dynamic modern economy, democratic electoral politics, a remarkable tradition of civil liberties and egalitarian ideals, a highly literate and educated population, and one of the most sophisticated and energetic free presses in the entire world. In these respects its citizens are among the luckiest in the modern Middle East, including (arguably) the ~20% or so whose citizenship is of the second-class variety. Those who live outside of Israel but within the territory Israel has occupied and colonized for ~~thirty~~ forty years, however, enjoy none of these things and are decidedly unlucky. Apartheid South Africa was also a Western liberal democracy. It's a generic designation, not an award for achievement. Look at the history of the 20th century. Some of the worst things have been done by economically, culturally, and even morally advanced nations; tinpot dictatorships don't have a monopoly on state iniquities, or chronic denial of same.--G-Dett 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        At the risk of going off on a tangent, the Occupation is forty years old, not thirty. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, MPerel, Y and everyone else who voted Delete this non-encyclopedic WP:SOAPBOX. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Y, who explained it most clearly IMO. --DLand ^TALK 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is one of the best examples of an article which should not have been created. Even if we put aside the pov issues, which are major, this article from the very beginning has been marred by dirty tricks, gratuitous distortions of wikipedia policy, fraudulent and dishonest afds, and all manner of deceptive subterfuge. A few editors chose to conspire behind the scenes from the very beginning to ensure that this article would not be deleted. In an effort to gain a veil of legitimacy they had a sock puppet nominate this article for deletion with a straw man argument and then quickly all voted keep and then closed it as a "snowball" before anyone could oppose. All of this clearly indicates a level of coordinated cooperation that is far greater than what many editors have been blocked for. When I see all the people who cite these ridiculous afds in their "keep" votes, I do my best to hope that they are just too lazy or disinterested to actually read up on the history here, but then I see many editors who were actually party to the earlier disputes and I dare say some who helped coordinate it. I understand that people are obviously going to come to these types of articles with strong opinions, nothing can change that, but the fact that so many people have engaged in such dishonest and indeed dishonorable methods really just ruins the whole idea of wikipedia for me. It is just so far from the spirit of cooperation that is so often talked about here, that I don't see how anyone can bring themselves to edit anymore.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheer up, Moshe! Wikipedia will survive.--G-Dett 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not really wikipedia as a whole I'm worried about, its just any kinda of article that has the potential for contention. They are what really damages wikipedia's creibility and its future.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Analysis of media phraseology, not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I came to this article fairly recently. I Repeatedly attempted to engage in productive dialog and have found all efforts to be futile. It appears that the actual conflict on the ground will be solved before this seemingly ill-fated article conforms to WP policies. It has been empirically demonstrated to my satisfaction that the subject matter of this article can be better addressed by one of the many already existing articles that do address the same subject.Doright 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Even President Carter reiterates the point, "my use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel." This demonstrates the improper nature of this article and its bias.Doright 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to fulfill all notability requirements. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and change title to something like "Israeli Apartheid Analogy". I hope that whomever closes this afd will recognize the partisan nature of this process. CJCurrie 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep And a recommendation that the article be protected from further spurious deletion requests. Five times is surely enough for an article on a subject which clearly isn't a trivial one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobgreenbaum (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep None of the arguments made relate to WP:DEL. I'm sure by the sixth nomination, which will probably be a week from Tuesday, someone will have realized that this nomination was just a flawed combination of WP:WAX with WP:GHITS and a fair measure of WP:ITANNOYSME. But, a flawed nomination isn't important, if subsequent good arguments are made. Y's WP:BIGNUMBER argument seems popular (3,000 edits and WP:IstillDONTLIKEIT) Others are attempting to apply WP:SOAP but the article had a huge criticism section so I can't see that applying here; the article is currently tagged as WP:NPOV for being too against the allegations. Otherwise, the article is WP:NOTABLE, WP:V'd and WP:RS'd. It's messy, and heavily edit-warred, and I empathize with Moshe cause I've deleted it from my watchlist on many occasions. And, perhaps it is "inherently POV" because Solomon himself couldn't find the right balance of sentences to make all editors happy here. But, still, per Tarc, no reasons to WP:DELETE. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people may be able to cite the previous nominations out of ignorance of the circumstances surrounding them, but as someone who has been involved with the dispute you should feel ashamed of yourself as you clearly know what really occured in those votes.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're memory is extremely close to being correct here, but I have not gone back and closely studied the first few AFDs, or related the ArbCom case, and my earliest apartheid related edit was on or just before 14 July 2006 and I don't recall the second AFD of this article on 18 July, which was a speed close (too soon), even popping up on my radar screen. Every AFD should be taken on its own merits, of course, but I am mainly perturbed that this one had come around, again, too soon. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A misunderstanding of the nomination, and the numerous arguments put forward here and elsewhere that support this sentiment. Arguments which call to delete this article relate to this forum. I asked two or three questions in nomination, and made a few other arguments there in favour of delete. Almost none of the keep votes have addressed or satisfied these arguments as far as I can see. In a debate about the framing of a topic on wikipedia, WP:NOTABLE, WP:V'd and WP:RS appear to be a last refuge rather than a counter argument. We have to work harder to present complex issues in an encyclopaedic fashion. Simply regurgitating mountains of material from whatever sources we can find in order to address a badly framed article title, piling WP:V on top of WP:V until the page looks like an exploded cake, means that this article has failed. Those pro-Israel editors have to deal with an article which is hung on a rhetorical phrase and makes explicate unproven allegations in the title itself, those anti-Israel editors have found that the point they wanted to make is now submerged beneath layers of argument and counter-argument which does not serve their goals. Therefore it has failed everyone, most importantly it has failed readers by not addressing a complex issue in a coherent form. Failed articles which have been given enough opportunities to succeed should be deleted.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if all of your facts are correct, the remedy is still inappropriate. If the subject is relevant (and this analogy assuredly is), the correct course of action is to improve the article, not to throw up our metaphorical hands in frustration and delete the piece entirely. For my part, I'd quite welcome the arrive of genuinely neutral parties to the discussion page. CJCurrie 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this an analogy, or is this a rhetorical phrase? I ask this because in some instances, the usage of apartheid outside Africa is tied to a comparison to apartheid itself, whilst in other instances it is a rhetorical term with little relationship with the African apartheid. Much in the same way we describe something as a blitz, without literally comparing it to the German Blitzkrieg.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the more important question should be, "has the analogy reached a sufficient level of cultural significance to merit inclusion on this project"? I can't imagine how anyone could honestly answer in the negative. CJCurrie 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe it merits inclusion in the project because of cultural significance, but we still have to ask whether the reader is best served by having it be the exclusive subject of one article, or whether it is better discussed within wider contexts. Debating whether the article "merits" existence is writer-centric; I'd like to see us discuss what is best for the reader. Typically, we center articles around facts and then offer varying interpretations of the facts, e.g. some people compare it to apartheid, some call it fascism, and some call it self-defense. Kla'quot 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article remains, I recommend we rename the title to Exploded Cake. Zleitzen accurately emphasises that the article serves the interests of no one--not proponents, opponents, and certainly not readers. What *would* serve the interests of everyone is to delete this article and present any relevant notable data from it in the format Zletizen suggests...distributed amongst the neutral pages that already exist. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Zleitzen, you are correct that there are explicit "unproven allegations in the title itself" but WP:V isn't about truth to begin with. But even if it were "truth" is meaningless in this context. The crack forensic lab at CSI: Miami could work around the clock day and night and they wouldn't be any close to knowing whether these allegations are "true." The U.N. could hold a trial and find everyone guilty and people would just say "Well, ya know how much the U.N. hates Israel." Jesus, Elijah, and Mohammed could descend arm-in-arm from the Heavens with a tablet enscribed by God himself pronouncing the matter one way or the other, and people would just say it was a trick done with mirrors. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In reply to Kla'quot, it is important for discussion of this nature to be seen in a wider context, yes. However, the wider context is generally delivered through there being links to other articles, with individual articles being of a manageable size. If there are better ways of presenting the information in this article, one suggestion is that you write that better way and than suggest merging this article into that better way. I don't think it would be the best solution to delete this article while this better way of presenting the information remains hypothetical. Bondegezou 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's time for all the apartheid pseudo-articles to go. The usable material here can be merged into relevant articles like, for example, filthy Jew. IronDuke 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to wonder if some people aren't voting "delete" simply because they find the analogy incorrect or offensive. Such perceptions may or may be accurate, but they are not sufficient grounds to remove the article. CJCurrie 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. And one might just as easily wonder if supporters are voting that way because they find Israeli policy incorrect or offensive. Luckily, motivations don't matter for our purposes, otherwise this process would be considerably more complicated. IronDuke 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I rather hope that we could avoid any sort of partisan voting. As I've said above, the important question should be, "has the analogy reached a sufficient level of cultural significance to merit inclusion on this project"? I can't imagine how anyone could honestly answer in the negative, and I'd challenge those who have called for deletion to address this issue directly. CJCurrie 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's always partisan voting, especially for this particular topic. Thankfully AfDs aren't just a "yea or nay" roll call, and much of these " I don't like it"'s votes are culled from the herd. Tarc 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If any votes are "culled" it should be "keep" votes that mention this being a "fifth" nomination, since they are based on a false premise. 6SJ7 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        To continue my previous comment, I suspect that the avoidance of partisanship will be very difficult indeed on a subject such as this. CJCurrie 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - IronDuke, your argument (and most of the other "delete" arguments) might hold water if the article were titled Israeli apartheid, as indeed I believe it used to be. —Ashley Y 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't agree. Perhaps a better example might be comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany, and individual Israelis to Hitler et al. That analogy is probably sourceable to an even higher degree than IA, and yet we're not giving people space in Wikipedia to rant about it. IronDuke 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear POV fork--Sefringle 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are there any contributors currently supporting deletion who would reconsider views if the article were retitled as "Israeli Apartheid Analogy"? CJCurrie 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that this question, or the answers, belong on this page. The question is whether the article should be deleted or not. However, I will also answer the question: No. The name that Kla'quot mentioned above would be acceptable. I doubt that I would find any title with both "Israel(i)" and "apartheid" to be acceptable. 6SJ7 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per Zleitzen and Y. This article was conceived in bad faith, nurtured by POV-pushers and propagandists, and protected by apathy and ignorance. It is inherently POV and unencylopedic, yet people have insisted on keeping it on the flimsiest of pretexts, either based on their dislike for Israel, or on previous straw man nominations that inevitably failed (as they were intended to), or on mindless invocations of "notability", "reliable sources", etc., which completely ignore the points made in this, the first real nomination. 3100 edits, and for what? The article was better at the beginning of November 2006, when it was half the length it is today. Like a cancer, it grows without structure or value, harming the body around it, and sapping it of strength better used in meaningful articles. It needs to be excised. This AfD will guide future AfDs regarding what Wikipedia considers worth documenting; it has spawned a number of similar (although generally markedly better) articles, simply because this article has become the yardstick by which Wikipedians test whether or not such articles are encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, how is this less encyclopaedic than Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba and Allegations of Islamic apartheid, at least two of which you seem to have put a lot of work into? —Ashley Y 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, would you mind elaborating on how this article is encyclopedically inferior to the "related" spin-offs? Each of those seems to be built around a few sources that incidentally use the word "apartheid"; this article, by contrast, covers a wide-ranging, sustained, deeply sourced, and hotly debated analogy between apartheid South Africa and the Israeli occupation, viewed in great scholarly and journalistic detail and variously through a moral lens (Carter), a historical lens (Benvenisti), a pragmatic lens (Adam and Moodley), and so on. Do you just mean that you personally think the other "allegations" (in fact, rhetorical invocations) are more convincing and creditable?--G-Dett 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Same question here. Please elaborate on why the spinoff articles are better. Kla'quot
    - Oh, and BTW you could be more civil. Citing notability and reliable sources in an AfD is "mindless," while comparing an article to cancer is... the kind of discussion we're supposed to be having here?? Kla'quot 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those articles are only necessary because of the existence of this one. It was important to maintain some semblance of balance.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's WP:POINT and it's not a good reason to create an encyclopedia article. Should we create Jewish racism to "balance" Antisemitism? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give it a rest. Arguments that claim that previous nominations were flawed because of who nominated them, or why, are especially unconvincing to me. The nominator does not control the discussion, and should not be the one who closes it. This has gotten to the point of being disruptive at this stage. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's try and be NPOV here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Palestinian territories, while occupied, are not part of Israel proper. They never had the status of being part of Israel proper, unlike the homelands in South Africa. They are not ghettos for Arabs within Israel, but rather are, and always have been, seperate areas of jurisdiction. The Prince 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean you favour deletion because you believe the analogy is flawed? CJCurrie 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of the policies at issue pertain to the treatment of Arab citizens of Israel within the Green Line, so it isn't simply a matter of what's happening in the Occupied Territories. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Catchpole 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Israeli apartheid per RolandR. Why perpetuate a double standard in which some articles are named "Allegations" and others (e.g., New antisemitism) are named as if the phenomena are facts? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious keep since Israel has on numerous occations been called an apartheid state. Failing that I would reccomend a rename so something like "Racism in Israel". // Liftarn
Keep, and possibly rename, given the great big air quotes that pasting "Allegations of..." puts on the topic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- no matter how fervently you don't like it or rhetorical knots you tie yourself into to say it -- doesn't wash as a good deletion rationale. --Calton | Talk 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zleitzen makes some good points, but I think the article works. The question of the applicability of the analogy is an issue in itself: that is, there are lengthy, notable debates specifically about the use and applicability of the term, above and beyond the issues of whether or not there is institutional racism in Israel. Thus, I believe it warrants its own article. There is plenty of good material here and it simply wouldn't fit into the articles Zleitzen suggests. There are clearly difficult POV issues here, but I would rather Wikipedia tries to tackle difficult POV issues through improving article content. It should be possible for the article to be balanced and factual (whether or not it currently is). Those who feel the allegations are unfounded (and there is to my mind much that is questionable about the analogy) should, I feel, focus their efforts on documenting that within the article. I am happy with the phrasing of "Allegations of...", but would be happy with a renaming if a good alternative could be found. Bondegezou 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zleitzen's reasoning. If you look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you can see plenty of good encyclopedia articles on arguments. Of course, those are classic philosophical arguments that people who are trained to be objective have written textbooks about and the articles are written and edited by philosophers who are trained to be objective and analytical. I don't think even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy could produce an objective, NOR article about "allegations of Israeli Apartheid", the subject is just too inflamatory and the two sides are too far apart. For wikipedia, where editors are not trained to be objective, its a waste of time even to try. There will always be an arms race between two factions of wikipedians.
To speak more generally, wikipedia has an 80/20 problem (choose whatever fraction you want) where our methodology produces great results for 80% of articles but the remaining 20% will be so problematic that we have to spend as much time trying to get them right as we spend improving the rest of the encyclopedia - and we still won't get good results. The only way we'll get a decent article on this topic is if we change the way we approach it - appoint a committee of objective and knowledgeable editors to write it for example and then only allow others to make changes if they can argue for them from evidence and policy. Obviously, this will never happen, and I'm not even sure the result would be any good, but the usual wikipedia way won't work here. GabrielF 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the previous deletion debate, as follows, in this, its fifth nomination. Keep per Sjakkalle in this, its fourth nomination. I disagree with "pitch 'til you win" tactics where an article is nominated over and over for deletion, and urge the principle of Stare decisis. Edison 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Edison 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a bazuqa. The only way this article should ever have existed was under its original name, and that article should only have discussed the term and the use to which it's put by antisemites and other collected ignorami. There is no way the subject of this article can ever be encyclopedic. It's nothing more than a cobbled-together bunch of anti-Israelisms and reads more like a blog than anything else. Nuke and flush. Tom e r ^talk 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for civility and assuming good faith. Gee... Lixy 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Tom e r ^talk 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I always wondered how this article came into existence. It incoherently mixes different allegations, which are often baseless, and should in any case be mentioned in other relevant articles (mostly Human rights in Israel, and somewhat Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israeli West Bank barrier). We gave the original article its chances, but it has developed into a POV fork rather than an encyclopedic article, so it's time to delete it. --Gabi S. 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POVFORK won't help. Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles fall under Wikipedia:Content_forking#What content/POV forking is not, as does Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Danny-w 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gabi S said it well. Gzuckier 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's interesting to see so many people who voted "Keep" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid vote "Delete" here, even though Zleitzen's argument that "Allegations of..." articles are inherently POV applies at least as much there as here. At least Zleitzen is consistent in calling for deletion of both. —Ashley Y 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that was part of Zleitzen's point. There are many editors who would like this article to be deleted. Having failed in the past to achieve that goal, they try to create a false equivalency by maintaining "Allegations of apartheid" articles about other countries. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced. The accusations are discussed in the mainstream media and academia. There is every reason for an article. 208.181.208.253 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kapamilya, Deal or No Deal statistics and trivia[edit]

A prod was removed for no good reason, so I decided to take this to AFD. This is pure fancruft/listcruft. Gameshow statistics and so on isn't a notable encyclopedia entry. As a note: several similar Deal or No Deal lists have been deleted in the past. This isn't any different from those, so this is no exception. RobJ1981 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources whatsoever, so its all just unverifiable cruft. -- Scorpion 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable trivia. Otto4711 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stats are from the show itself and this is for the record. Please reconsider. If you can't find any sources, go to YouTube!. - 上村七美 | talk 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't need stats for each and every game show on TV. However, if anyone really wants to save this, they can just transwiki it to wikia:Philippines. (which like has no/zero articles that I know of, lol.) --Howard the Duck 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England and Portugal football rivalry[edit]

unsourced, weasel words, and a kick in the gonads and a disallowed goal does not make a rivalry. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of know, it reads as original resarch, so delete. If sources can be found, that specifically and primarily deals with "the england portugal football rivalry" (not merely sources on the incidents in the article) I wouldn't mind keeping it. Dr bab 06:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There most definitely is rivalry between England and Argentina & also withGermany, it is part of popular culture and expounded upon in the press in England when the teams meet. But England and Portugal? No, certainly not yet. Especially when there most definitley is football rivalry between, for instance, England Scotland, yet no article exists for that rivalry (not that I can find anyway).♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There most certainly is a rivalry between England and Portugal. I would even rate it as more serious than England and Argentina because there have been recent meet-ups between the two teams. Take a look at Wikipedia and see how many furious English football fans are posting their anti-portuguese rubbish. Also, if you think there are weasel words then find a way to fix them before immediately doing the heavy step of putting this article in "Articles for Deletion". As quoted by the Wikipedia deletion policy: "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". No one has barely even taken the time to edit this page. Here are some sources that show that this rivalry really exists out of Wikipedia:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/japan-sport-footballculture-teams-alliance-2.htm http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2069994,00.html From an English perspective: http://portugal.worldcupblog.org/group-d/mission-england.html I hope that you will try to keep this article. Wwicki 14:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By this logic, England could be said to have rivalries with half of Europe. Archibald99 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSome English football fans posting anti-portugese rubbish, does not prove that there is a football rivalry between the two countries. It does though prove the ignorance of those people posting such comments and nothing else. Also, none of the sources provided to prove this rivalry actually prove there is a rivalry. One is an online blog, which is not a reliable source to prove the existence of this alleged rivalry. The British Council link is not even about football, it is about the two countries historically, in which the writer adds "In the last few decades, there has been trading of sorts in footballing terms." And he then tries to expound on his theory, but he still initially refers to it only as "a trading of sorts in footballing terms". That again does not prove the existence of any real rivalry. And the third link doesn't really discuss any rivalry to any extent. As an English football fan, I would not consider Portugal as any sort of traditional or modern day rival, certainly no more than any other country. As for the so called rivalry between England and Portugal being more serious than that between England and Argentina - sorry but you are absolutely wrong. And to even suggest that the rivalry is less serious is, with respect, missing the entire history of the England and Argentina football rivalry.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The countries have contested two notable matches in recent years, but that does not constitute a rivalry. Oldelpaso 17:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A borderline rivalry if a rivalry at all. Kingjamie 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly a rivalry, just chance that the two teams have played each other at successive tournaments. Qwghlm 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. No more rivalry than with say, Germany. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heford, New Hampshire[edit]

Place appears not to exist. Suspected HOAX. Note that per Eastmain, http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic does not have a listing for Heford, New Hampshire. --Shirahadasha 00:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete - I live in New Hampshire and I know for sure that the place does not exist. See: List of New Hampshire places. Plus I was the one who put it up for speedy deletion in the first place. Cooljeanius 01:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Town does not exist. --Ken Gallager 12:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any evidence of its existance. Even Mapquest spat it out [30]. --Oakshade 03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 05:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heford Harrington High[edit]

Heford, New Hampshire and Heford Harrington High appear not to exist (See companion AfD for town). Suspected HOAX --Shirahadasha 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete for same reasons as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heford, New Hampshire. Since the town doesn't exist, the school can't exist either. Plus I was the one who put it up for speedy deletion in the first place. Cooljeanius 01:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as no assertion of notability, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 10:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any evidence of its existance. --Oakshade 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ip contribution have not been discounted. However, this is not a vote; the arguments made by those contributing here on the basis of "what about article x" and the failure to address policy and guideline issues, have been discounted.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian West (Radio Announcer)[edit]

I tagged this for {{notability}} yesterday but the tag was simply removed by the original author a few hours later with no new claims of notability made (and I suspect, though can't actually prove, that said author is the subject himself). Run-of-the-mill local radio announcers are not notable. Delete. Bearcat 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...fails WP:BIO. "Voted first overall student by his classmates" and "employee of the month" don't seem really that notable, and even these minimal claims aren't cited. DMacks 03:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity piece. Subject simply does not pass the bar. A string of very minor and unverifiable awards. MOst importantly, sources lack independence. Ohconfucius 10:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can let you know that this wasn't written by the subject, and that there are hundreds of radio announcers on here, and that's why this subject was added. He is a notable radio announcer and has been heard in many markets and has a big following. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.141.104.2 (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Then kindly show verifiable proof of that following, because Wikipedia does not work on a "take my word for it" basis. We require verifiable information, and Google shows exactly no evidence of any burgeoning Brian West fan club. Bearcat 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' I wrote this article - and I am not Brian West. I do know lots about his career however. I can and will cite what needs to be. I am not familiar on how to do it. I tried to, and it didn't work. But I don't think this article should be deleted. As was stated in the above, there are hundreds of radio announcers on here, and I think it's important that the Canadian guys are kept on here just as the Americans are. Shock wav 03:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC) — Shock wav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The radio announcers with articles on Wikipedia are those who are heard nationally, such as Brent Bambury, Grant Lawrence, Opie and Anthony or Howard Stern. Wikipedia does not have a lot of articles about local radio announcers. Bearcat 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, you're above statement is false. Please refer to the Canadian Radio Personalities Category (at the bottom of the article in question) and you will see that these announcers are not heard 'nationally'. 'keep' 64.231.233.159 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my above statement is not false. The vast majority of the announcers in said category are heard nationally (and mostly on the CBC networks, at that); the few that are purely local personalities have some additional criterion of notability besides just being voices on the radio, such as having played in the NHL or been in a notable band before becoming radio hosts. You're misrepresenting reality here, not me. Also, just for the record, anonymous IPs, and users whose first-ever Wikipedia contribution is to vote in an AFD, are generally ignored when tallying up whether the consensus is to keep or delete. Bearcat 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I disagree with Bearcats statement "Run-of-the-mill local radio announcers are not notable". I was looking for a guy I used to listen to, and found him on here. I found it very helpful that he was on here. Radio people are in the public eye, and are celebrities to some people, and therefore they may be searched for projects, or other assignments. If they are not 'worthy' enough to be on here, then why is there a "Radio Personalities Page" or a "Radio people stub"? Much Music VJ's are on here, and they are announcers that you can see. In fact I recently read that many radio stations in the major centres have more listeners than Much Music has viewers...?? I think this article should be kept, as like I did with another radio person, perhaps someone may lookup this individual. 64.231.233.159 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC) — 64.231.233.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If they are not 'worthy' enough to be on here, then why is there a "Radio Personalities Page" or a "Radio people stub"? Because there are notable radio personalities in the world, e.g. Howard Stern. That fact does not make all radio personalities equally notable. Oh, and kindly provide a source for your claim about the relative audiences of MuchMusic vs. radio stations. (Also, note that this is this user's first-ever edit.) Bearcat 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there is no evidence of him being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. --Paul Erik 06:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Local radio personal are not inherently notable, and I'm frankly getting sick of the ILIKEIT crowd. Wikipedia is not for everything you like/want to know/think should be on here/ect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' Yes Howard Stern is ONE person... You can add Rick Dees, Casey Kasem, Ryan Seacrest... that is still only 4 people... ok even add 10 more... so you're at 14. There are HUNDREDS of radio people on here - and Canadian radio people at that. So you don't have a valid point as to why this article shouldn't be posted when SO many more are. I'm not going to give specific examples, so you don't go after their authors as well - but what gives you the right to pick and choose which people go up and which don't. The reasons you are giving go against OTHER posting that are up on this site. Shock wav 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)— Shock wav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Keep': You state “Run-of-the-mill local radio announcers are not notable” Says who? Are local television personalities notable? If you notice, many of the LOCAL reporters from City T.V are notable enough…why is that? Because you can see them? I have read some of the City T.V articles and I do not believe that this information :“Many consider her to be a great news anchor.She is smart!” is very notable. Or how about: “She was a model before she came to CityTV” Is that notable information? I think not. Neither of those articles state “fan clubs” or provide “varifiable information”. Why are they not up for debate? If you are going to debate over a local radio personality then I think the rules should apply for everyone. MagGuy 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — MagGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. It's as simple as that. "The other guy has one, so I should too" Is not a valid argument. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' "they have one and so should I" is not the argument actually. It's just stating a fact as to how there is no consistency with your argument. 64.141.104.2 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP votes don't count in AFD. Bearcat 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' That's a good point above - I'd just like to add to that point by saying that you don't have a good rebuttle by avoiding the point that there are hundreds on here. It's not saying that "they have one, so I want one too". It's saying - this article is NO different than current articles on here. PERIOD. Shock wav 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — Shock wav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're the only one avoiding a point here: the "hundreds of radio personalities on here" are all actually notable for reasons beyond the mere fact of being voices on the radio, while you have not demonstrated that Brian West is similarly notable. Bearcat 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I like the point that was made above "Radio people are in the public eye, and are celebrities to some people, and therefore they may be searched for projects, or other assignments." Students taking broadcasting or maybe even other courses, may have to do an assignment on members of the media, and if they are looking online and want to find out more about the personality than what's stated on the stations website, they would come to wiki for it. I believe that members of the media, personalities should have information about themselves available to the public, and they should be noted on wiki. My 2 cents. Thank you. 64.141.104.2 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP votes don't count in AFD. And trust me, if anybody in a broadcasting course is given an assignment about a radio host by their prof, the assignment's gonna be about Foster Hewitt or Matthew Halton or Mary Lou Finlay or Barbara Frum, not Brian West. Bearcat 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I use WIKI ALL THE TIME for work. Just because I haven't created an account, I can't have a say? So what are you saying, you don't think people without an account should use Wiki? I'd guess that the majority of people who use it don't have an account. 64.141.104.2 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And have you ever taken a broadcasting course? Because I have. Although there are possible projects on Stern and the other random big success stories... Generally, the profs have you look at local announcers, and success stories from your city. Especially Canadian ones here in Canada.

Which is exactly why I named several successful Canadian radio announcers. Brian West is not in that league. And no, I'm not saying people without an account shouldn't use Wikipedia; they can read it all they want. I'm saying that people without an account actually don't get to override Wikipedia policy when an article doesn't properly comply with that. Bearcat 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took a look at the article and doesn't show that much importance (not notable). It's like if it was a small profile about him. If the person was more notable, there could be more info on him instead of info of stations he has been. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lately, there are 2 from 64.141.104.2, 3 from Shock wav and two from 64.231.233.159. Just letting know that the duplicate comments will not count. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 15:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The list of radio personalities here is quite lengthy and also that his awards (Canadian awards) makes him somewhat notable so I thought maybe it should be kept for now, but it would need some work.--JForget 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' Many radio announcers seem to be on here along with television people and journalists. Radio is a form of entertainment, and entertainers belong on wiki - whether national or not. According to this article, someone in Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto (The GTA), or Hamilton could listen to / be looking up this person. Population of Ottawa: 1 million. Kingston: 120,000, Hamtilon: 500,000 and the GTA: 4 Million. That's over 5 million people who potentially could have heard this announcer, and want more info about him. agree to keep. SASHA 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC) — Sasha 80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: User's first-ever edit. Bearcat 07:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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