Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

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 redirect to The Colbert Report. Krimpet (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.K. Winsome[edit]

Occassional character on The Colbert Report. "Biography" consists of a series of jokes from the show. No independent, reliable sources are cited and apparently none exist . Lack of sources means that Wikipedia cannot do an article using sourced analysis and explaining the real world implications of this character, as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. --Guinnog 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless source outside the Colbert Report discussing this character specifically can be provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to the The Colbert Report or a page on minor characters of the show. I accept that sources can be provided to cover this character, but I'm not seeing a reason to have it stand alone. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Wenli 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Colbert Report per WP:FICT. Minor fictional characters should be listed either in a list article or in the source article, and this character is in the source article. Otto4711 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Colbert Report. Clearly a minor character, therefore, per WP:FICT, belongs in the list of characters there, which the character already is. Expand the one sentence there with some of the content at this article. Goodnight mush^Talk
Redirect to The Colbert Report, much as a minor recurring character for other television programs would be. (Note: this solution would be better than simply deleting because it seems to discourage recreation, especially by newer editors.) --Kinu ^t/_c 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Colbert Report per WP:FICT. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colbert Report --St.daniel ^talk 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Colbet report also. Retiono Virginian 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in agreement with the reasons listed above. Acalamari 18:11, 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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iter Vehemens ad Necem[edit]

No coverage in independent, reliable sources after several days of concern. Fails WP:N for notability. Eyrian 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything I could say to defend it would only delay the inevitable. No use crying over spilt milk. Such is life. We're all in this together, but we all die alone. Make it quick, I don't want to get depressed abominably more then I already am. What does it matter, the "Violent Road to Death" is always waiting anyway. Down the tubes. --Planetary 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is one of those articles where I feel I know less about the subject after reading it than before. Don't see how it could ever be rescued, and even it it did would fail WP:N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ......--Snarius 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion not a vote - if you're arguing keep, you need to give a reason - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's backwards. If there's no reason to delete, then it should be kept. Planetary didn't give a reason to delete, and yours is mostly bullshit. That notability thing was only ever a non-reason. --Snarius 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That notability thing" isn't a non-reason, it's the primary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, which this article currently fails - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Snarius here's a more concrete reason to delete: I give up.It's hopeless to resist, stop prolonging the agony, once something gets on AFD,it doesn't come back except under extenuating circumstances, which I don't see here. There's no way for the article to satisfy the(rather arbitrary) notability rules, so it's gotta go. No use moping, in my opinion. --Planetary 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides also existing in other languages (fr, fi, pl), this game is distributed on netbsd and freebsd, which is a useful way to indicate notability according to the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE. John Vandenberg 08:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not seeing to which criterion of WP:SOFTWARE you are referring. Could you please elaborate? --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, ..." John Vandenberg 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being available for an OS distribution is vastly different than being included with it (otherwise every piece of junk written for Windows would meet the criterion), and I see nothing indicating the latter. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FreeBSD and NetBSD actually include this software within their Ports collection. It is not addon software; every installation of these OS's include it as optional software. This would be like Microsoft including it on the CDs it distributes in an optional games pack. It has been included in the FreeBSD codebase since Nov 2005, meaning FreeBSD team members active maintain it. It has been included in NetBSD since Jun 2004. While im at it, it is worth noting it is also included in the Gentoo portage tree since Nov 2005. John Vandenberg 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SOFTWARE:"Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution." FreeBSD Ports has at least 16,000 packages, NetBSD's pkgsrc over 6,500, and Gentoo's Portage (software) at 20,000+. Phony Saint 04:25, 27 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 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If something is notable then sources should be available, existence on other wikis is hardly a reason to keep an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep When notability cannot be clearly established, the article should be tagged, not deleted. That's policy, which overrides guidlines. Wikipedia would lose almost everything but its FA and GA pages if we handled every article the same way. Tag the article and leave it be. There is no reason to delete it. Matt Brennen 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Strong Agree (with comment) (and abstain from voting) - It takes up peoples' time to have to defend others hard work through these votes when many articles could instead be cited for missing notability, or merging or splitting, etc. instead of just deleted.--R e m i 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assume good faith. I can't speak for other editors, but I at least do a little homework and try to find sources, etc., before I make a recommendation one way or another. Yes, notability is not policy, but it's a better barometer than WP:NOHARM. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did tag it for notability. It got removed a few times, and people refused to add sources. See the article's talk page. --Eyrian 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Eyrian's comment I say delete. The sources aren't there and it looks like no one is gonna put them there.Shindo9 Hikaru 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and unnotable. --RaiderAspect 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Comment appears to have been edit conflict deleted; original from here[reply]
Weak keep per John Vandenberg. Weak presence of notability, but I'll take that. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no assertion of notability beyond how it's distributed, and this has been demonstrated to be an unreliable assertion of notability. DarkSaber2k 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are no sources, and as yet I see none.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are actually four sources --St.daniel ^talk 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. The official site, an unofficial wiki site and two forums. All highly unreliable sources. DarkSaber2k 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this. Editor's choice, plus an articulate appraisal. Stammer 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would change my vote if I could find out how many players the game has.
Quibble. I'd rather translate it as "Violent Journey to Death". Stammer 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: A directed Google search turns up 150 unique hits [1], more than I'd expected, and some of them look good. If the article had any decent independent sources, my vote would change ... but this is a three-year-old article. No excuses. Rather than screaming at the injustice of deletion policy, perhaps Keep proponents could ... mmm, source the article? RGTraynor 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eyrian and RGTraynor. If those who are interested in the topic refuse to add sources and remove notability tags (and the rest of us don't care enough to improve it) when will this ever get better? 140.247.248.50 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Oops, not signed in: Calliopejen1 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- It may have assertion of notability but I have never heard of it. Does meetWP:SOFTWARE, but I don't think 9/10 people have heard of it. Retiono Virginian 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gee, let's see...Fails the mandatory policy of attibution, the general policy on notability and it's specific subsection of notability concerning software. Game over. NeoFreak 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)software[reply]
'Weak Keep' - It seems to cross the minimum threshhold of WP:SOFTWARE and lack of attention doesn't in itself indicate failure of WP:N. I would suggest, however, that the advocates for the article try to address the concerns expressed by the other editors with all speed if they truly want to save it. Eggishorn 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fails WP:RS though. --RaiderAspect 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's granted the tiniest sliver of notability under WP:SOFTWARE, being one of thousands of pieces of software included with those OSes. (See my note above; 1 out of 16,000 is not a good ratio.) But, WP:SOFTWARE isn't an official notability guideline, and the article's subject doesn't meet any other relevant notability guidelines. Phony Saint 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has gotten a lot more attention then I thought. Looks like it won't go down without a fight, but if the fight is long enough, an admin will delete it out of spite, I'm quite sure.--Planetary 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With keeps like yours, who needs deletes? Stammer 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unnotable, low quality, with "keep" arguments composed mostly of fanboys who are convinced this is some kind of battle. All the things we shouldn't have in a game article.Wokinlone 02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopedia. Captain panda 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few reviews in somewhat notable places: Home of the Underdogs and http://www.gamehippo.com --Hexii 09:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (tagged for cleanup). This is a non-admin close. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synapse Films[edit]

Notability not asserted. Not enough reliable Google hits to judge notability. Written as an advertisement. soum (0_o) 04:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many films that appear to be popular in a movie subculture. In a current googlenews search I get 5 hits about its success and movies[2][3] plus decent amount of ghits. Notable, and not spam. Arbustoo 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless better sourced IMDB and fansites are not a source for notability, and a regional paper isn't enough. I think there might possibly be reviews, but you've got to find them. DGG 03:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Arbustoo. Clearly they have produced notable works. Tag as an {{ad}} or fix. John Vandenberg 09:34, 22 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 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it doesn't seem very notable, but may be better if better sourced and rewritten. — Wenli 01:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Fangoria source (number 2) above plus this second Fangoria source are sufficient to convince me that the company has sufficient notability. It does need to be re-written to be less adverspammy and must be completely sourced. Otto4711 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Remi 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AfD is not a vote. Please qualify your statement with "why." --Kinu ^t/_c 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like an advert, but definitely can be improved. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a bit spammy and needs to be properly referenced, but this is a well-known DVD label, which has a good amount of non-trivial coverage.[4] [5] In addition, a Google search for synapse dvd finds hundreds of reviews for the company's products (DVD's). DVDVerdict.com alone seems to have reviewed 33 of them.[6] Prolog 07:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite Needs serious rewriting but notabality is certainly established. --St.daniel ^talk 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and a prediction. Based on spammy tone and redlinks, there will soon appear articles on each of the principals of this company, and each movie's article will soon contain a link to this company. As far as the hundreds of reviews mentioned above, they are reviews of the movies, which are not a creation of the company unless Synapse has changed them somehow, they are just selling them. --killing sparrows^(chirp!) 11:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. DVD reviews almost always contain either a review or a summary of the film too, but these still are DVD reviews. Anyway, even without these, notability has been established per WP:CORP. Prolog 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Although not mentioned in the article, Synapse do produce documentaries on underground movies along with the likes of Anchor Bay and Blue Underground. As for the redlinks, I agree that the owners of the of the company are not notable enough to have articles on themselves and therefore sould be de-linked, however Document Of The Dead is a reasonable well known documentary on the making of Dawn Of The Dead. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CORP, properly sourced. I don't believe there's anything in deletion policy suggesting that speculation over an article's potential for unencyclopedic forks represents valid grounds to delete it. RGTraynor 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:CORP but could do with some tidying up. Retiono Virginian 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:CORP IMHO. mako (talk•contribs) 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Although relatively unknown in mainstream movie fan circles, Synapse are popular with the fans of the cult movie circuit. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The fate of the merged content in the target article is left to editorial discretion. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Synapse Films releases[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR; a list of DVD releases from a DVD company. Possibly created just to advertize their available DVDs as Synapse Films reads a bit like an advert. Masaruemoto 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete better as a category. Arbustoo 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the list includes many red links that are useful to start the articles, or help a searcher find out more about a movie they have borrowed. John Vandenberg 07:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see no reason why this list couldn't be merged into Synapse Films.Chunky Rice 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; there may be some confusion about who Synapse Films are. They are not a production company, or a studio, they are merely a DVD distributor, so their connection with most of these titles is minimal. Masaruemoto 02:23, 26 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 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. This is a list comprised of items that are loosely associated to each other by virtue of having been released by a particular distributor. Otto4711 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --R e m i 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. A category, perhaps? Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is currently a consensus against having films categorized by their DVD distributor, as it is overcategorization. Such categories for The Criterion Collection have been repeatedly deleted. Prolog 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Synapse Films. Release list is useful information about a DVD label, but I don't see why it would need a separate article. Prolog 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Delete per sources. But could merge to Synapse Films. --St.daniel ^talk 11:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree that the Synapse Films article is notable, but especially since it is short, there is no conceivable reason why it requires a separate film list. RGTraynor 14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Synapse films -- at least until the two sections outgrow one article. mako (talk•contribs) 17:16, 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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sassas[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable organisation. No sources, or hint of them on google. Contested prod. MER-C 04:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super duper delete Wow, these folks had the audacity to link to Youtube and Myspace! Ha ha. YechielMan 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom's assertion is incorrect. "Society for the Activation of Social Space through Art and Sound" on Google has plenty of hits. John Vandenberg 09:40, 22 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 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if fully sourced. perhaps the Reliable reviews and other sources should be examined to see if there are some selected ones that can go on the page itself. DGG 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Remi 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And your reasoning would be... ? --Kinu ^t/_c 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that it needs to be sourced, but we have loads of otherwise serviceable articles that need citations. Dppowell 03:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs to be better sourced. MySpace and YouTube are not reliable sources. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please rename the article SASSAS or, better yet, the full name of the organization. Of course, the article could be cleaned up as well. mako (talk•contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the review external link convinced me they are notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far I see alot of Keep "if sourced". Well, these are Delete "as is" votes. NeoFreak 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the mandatory inclusion policies of both attribution and notability. NeoFreak 22:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial D real-life locations and popularity[edit]

Rather lengthy article about the real-life and pop-culture references in a manga series. Article is unsourced and is full of original research. Fails WP:A. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 22 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 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 01:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a relist still only a "per nom" vote... Seems to be primarily WP:OR and and anything that isn't is still unsourced. Looks to me like a failure of WP:ATT. Goodnight mush^Talk 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, "per nom" indicates that I agree with the reasoning of the nominator. I suppose I could re-type everything the nominator said but that seems kind of pointless. Otto4711 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I must vote since it is all original research. However it was an interesting article. Publish it somewhere else. Steve Dufour 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the nominator. Acalamari 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. C56C 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and against the spirit of WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the very start, significant parts of the article are original research. In addition, by noting multiple insignificant occurences of "Initial D" (or something similar to it), the article becomes a repository for trivia (see WP:AVTRIV). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. People seem willing to clean this up and add refs.. John Reaves (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seburo[edit]

This article fails to meet the criterion "The subject of the article is also the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works. Masamune Shirow has been the only referenced source in this article, who was also the creator of the imaginary small-arms manufacturer. For these reasons, I am requesting that this article be deleted. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 16:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The nominator is undoubtedly correct that nobody outside the manga universe is likely to have said anything on the subject. The problem is that you can take this argument to an extreme - after all, Quidditch is arguably not relevant outside the Harry Potter universe, though external sources have mentioned it. I hope an expert on the subject can clarify the notability issue. YechielMan 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per the Quidditch comparison, as the article covers a topic which appears in just about all the incarnations of the Ghost in the Shell franchise. Anville 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I call your attention to the two external links, which are non-shirow references. 'Seburo' has a suprisingly large presence outside of Shirow's universe, including game mods, Shadowrun. and most notably Second life. I don't really want to try the Pokemon defense on this and I'm trying to avoid WP:ILIKEIT, but I think the broad adoption of Seburo makes it more notable than Quidditch, and notable enough to survive the AfD -- at least on these grounds. The external references seem sufficient to assert notability as per WP:FICT. --Mdwyer 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, place those references in the corresponding section in the article. If those works would have been included in it at the time I nommed the article, I probably wouldn't have (if the sources were reliable and in English, that is). ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarassed to say that I don't know how to do references correctly, and haven't taken the time to learn, yet. I try to figure it out tonight. --Mdwyer 19:56, 25 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 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'd be willing to help with adding refs if they exist, though I must admit I'm an avid shadowrun fan and I'm not sure where the reference is, excepting its use as a Japanese name (Suburo Renraku, founder of Renraku Computer Systems in the game if I recall correctly). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep WP:Anime covers things such as this. It is also a notable article. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's under the scope of a wikiproject is hardly reason to keep the article. As to your asertion of notability? Why exactly do you think that? I must admit I'm unconvinced by such references as "clearly influenced" (clear to whom? is the verifiable?) Wintermut3 07:14, 28 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. John Reaves (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile[edit]

This page currently has two articles: one is a dictionary definition of the work Versatile (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and the other is for a tractor brand with no notability established. - BierHerr 15:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I boldly removed the dicdef. No opinion on the corporation. YechielMan 02:38, 22 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 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Top and bottom in sex and BDSM. The tractor company does not appear to be notable. Otto4711 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick scan of ghits suggests it's a notable brand name. Dppowell 03:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis. That solution would solve the problem. 149.89.1.32 17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "solve the problem" you mean "create a nonsensical redirect", then yes. But no. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not strike the comments of other editors, even if you consider them "bad" or ill-advised. The closing admin will judge the merits of the arguments and will act accordingly. I have reverted your action. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Eh, fair enough I guess. It just struck me as an entirely bad-faith vote intended only to confuse the situation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you're probably right ... it's just disruption (check the IP's other recent edits). Since the suggestion makes no sense, it will just be ignored (as numbers are not the most important thing in an AfD). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No complaint against the tractor brand, but I think it would be strange if people searching versatile on wikipedia ended up reading about a tractor. Eusebeus 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Timothy Swanson. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Swanson[edit]

non notable college professor. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to elucidate why Swanson is more notable than your average professor. YechielMan 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure it does, the average professor does not come anywhere near the status of the holder of a named chair at an an internationally famous research university such as University College,London. (and UK named chairs are fewer and even more prestigious than the US ones.). If there's 5000 UK university teachers of economics (a guess) this would put him in the top 1%. There are undoubtedly major publications to add, so the article is still a stub, but with a position like that the notability is certain and the publications will certainly be there. That's why people get such positions. DGG 05:38, 22 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 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the nomination here comes from a confusion between the different meanings of "Professor" in British & American English. In the UK, Professor is the highest rung on the academic ladder, and a Professorship at the largest university in the country is definitely N — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am convinced by his title that he could be notable, but the article is in an embarrassingly stubby state and has not been improved over the course of the AfD. For someone to have reached this point, it seems very likely that a lot more could be said about him. —David Eppstein 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto others. --R e m i 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any University Professor holding the chair of a department at a prestigious University is notable. Jazznutuva 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Professor Swanson currently holds the Chair in Law & Economics at University College London". That's notable. The article should list some or all of his publications and it doesn't, but I think you can assume he didn't get a job as prestigious as that without any. BTLizard 11:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in his field, holding a Chair at UCL implies that. I've added some publications but if anyone has access to a decent academic database I'm sure they'll find more. Madmedea 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. mako (talk•contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BTLizard. matt91486 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment JStor, doing a search of 75 journals (targeted search of Law, Economics, Finance, Statistical research, Population studies and African-American Studies) has no hits for this guy, though JStor has a 2-year lag in availibility, you'd expect a chair to have published more widely than simply the last 2 years in his field(s) of specialty. He's mentioned on Lexis Legal Research only in the abstract of a symposium actually written by Daniel H. Cole in that he'll be presenting a paper on the conservation of biological resorces in 'legal regimes'. For someone who's supposedly a notable professor and chair, his publications in reputable journals (those included in Lexis/Nexis and JStor) seem to be pretty thin. On the other hand symposium inclusion and citation in other works may speak to notability. I admit I was hoping for a 'slam dunk' keep case when I went on JStor and Lexis, to compare, a search for the chair of my own department at University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee shows 5 'highly relevant' hits on JStor, 7 on Lexis/Nexis and 313 on Google Scholar (plus 125 more without his middle initial).Wintermut3 22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment: hits go up substantially if you search for "Timothy Swanson" instead of "Tim Swanson." A book of his was reviewed in The Economic Journal, Vol. 111, No. 475, and called "important" (the review seems more interested in listing the contents than assessing their impact pro or con). BTW - UCL Economics department does seem to use Professor in the American sense, but it's still more notable than average. --Myke Cuthbert 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
confirmation Indeed searching for his full name gives far more hits on both JStor and Lexis/Nexis. I kinda dropped the ball there, since most people do publish under their full names. In light of that, he does appear to be substantially notable for his publications. Wintermut3 01:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument for for moving this page from Tim to Timothy Swanson once the AfD is over, since that's what he has chosen to publish under and its his publications that make him notable. --Myke Cuthbert 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and move Good point Mscuthbert. On further review of publications I can definately say there are enough hits on google scholar and in publication databases that are relevant (IE pertaining to THIS Timothy Swanson) to establish him as a notable professor above and beyond being a named academic chair at a notable university, which in and of itself conveys notability. All that added together makes me confident enough to lodge a firm 'keep' vote, if the page is moved to the name that he publishes under. Wintermut3 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable academic. Metamagician3000 23:24, 29 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 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Piekos[edit]

He may be a radio presenter, but there is nothing in the article to indicate he meets WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. However, the facts mentioned in the article are verifiable, per Viking FM's website. I just think he may not meet the criteria mentioned above. --SunStar Net ^talk 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Merge to 96.9_Viking_FM. Sancho 18:33, 26 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 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...or merge, but not every two-bit radio personality in the world needs an article. Dppowell 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parks Junior High School[edit]

Non-notable junior high school Guroadrunner 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of notability, no references. TJ Spyke 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really struggling to find anything N about this one. "Lunch consists of a burrito, Papa Johns Pizza, Chinese Food, hamburger, chicken sandwich, Monzerella sticks, fried chicken or a Subway Sandwich" - good to see CA schools are serving a nice balanced diet — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and no references. — Wenli 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lunch options?! Where'd that come from?Shindo9 Hikaru 02:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article made explicit claims of notability and appropriate references have been added to support the claim. The school has been recognized twice by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the nation's highest award for a school. Non-encyclopedic content mentioned above has been removed. It's amazing what can be accomplished when your goal is to improve articles rather than just get rid of them. I sincerely hope that those individuals who have already participated will reconsider their votes in light of the explicitly supported claim of notability. Alansohn 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prior to your edit the article made no "explicit claim to notability" whatsoever - the only claims in the version which was nominated were "The Parks Instrumental Band and String Orchestra are great music programs" (twice), "The Parks volleyball team took 2nd in the county finals in 2005", and "the advanced choir group has performed at festivals and has received prestigious awards". While I do believe we ought to have articles on most high schools, I'm still not convinced there's anything about this particular junior high school to pass WP:ORG. Of the four references added, two are about other schools & don't mention this school once, while the other two are both just laundry lists of schools with nothing to single this one out — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Alansohn. Parts of the article are unencyclopaedic doesn't mean we have to delete the entire article. Article looks decent enough after the edits done by Alansohn although I don't mind if A day at Parks and Extra-Curricular Activities sections go too. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 06:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Chop away... Alansohn 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps some of the usual defenders of school articles could go to WP:NOTE and start a discussion to establish notability guidelines for schools such as the Blue Ribbon program mentioned above. I see the same for and against arguments here for most every nom. In my opinion this is a waste of our time and effort. I personally think very few schools are notable but in the absence of guidelines to use, what other basis is there for a !vote? I just read that 85% of school AfD's result in no consensus or keep, so establish some guidelines and lets stop wasting time and effort. If the end result is that all schools are notable, so be it, I disagree but we all have better things to do, including the supporters.--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 11:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We desperately need to find some agreement on what constitutes notability for schools. After two failed efforts at WP:SCHOOLS, we only seem further apart on finding any middle ground. While I believe that most elementary or junior highs would have a great deal of trouble providing sources to establish notability, most high schools would have no trouble finding appropriate sources to justify retention. Alansohn 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I strongly agree. I personally feel that secondary schools or their equivalents are almost always N as they generally have a significant impact on both their community and their students, whilst primary schools, junior highs etc don't, but am well aware this is purely a subjective view. I also agree the current situation wastes everyone's time rehashing the same debate. Also, applying WP:ORG to schools - the closest we have to a current criteria - exacerbates systemic bias since schools in the US & Canada are far more likely to have web sources than those elsewhere — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above desire to establish a clear guideline for notability. Personally, I feel the standard set on the German and French wikis (i.a.) are good - i.e. schools considered as such are non-notable. As is the case here. I respect that some will disagree with that standard, which is of course the ongoing source of acrimony (no names) in these debates stretching back 3 years now. Eusebeus 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The article makes explicit claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V, WP:NN. I concur on the need for notability standards, but as far as this particular one goes, this Blue Ribbon School citation - which is waved as prima facie evidence of notability - gets pulled out on damn near every junior high school AfD. I'm coming to believe that the award is nowhere remotely close to being as notable as all of that. RGTraynor 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Are you claiming that you have been unable to click on the links provided to verify the sources provided? Are any schools notable? This is just a long-winded version of the unacceptable, Just not notable. Refer to a genuine Wikipedia policy, not your personal whims and arbitrary beliefs. Alansohn 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am claiming that those links constitute trivial mentions, and are not sources discussing the schools at any length that meets policy requirements. RGTraynor 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem any more notable than any most other high schools nominated for deletion. Acalamari 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The article makes an explicit claim of notability, having been recognized twice as a Blue Ribbon school, the highest honor an American schol can receive. That puts it among a group of about one schools in a thousand nationwide. Alansohn 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be a credible argument, except how come about three schools out of four up for AfD suddenly have these Blue Ribbon citations spring up? What's your source for the one in a thousand figure? RGTraynor 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because of clear signs of notability. --24.154.173.243 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom --TREYWiki 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MetsFan76 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two blue ribbons per WP:N. FWIW, I don't think the school +s and -s are that far apart at the moment, as many of the recent school AfDs have had good consensus. There will always be a minority of +++s and ---s who refuse to accept any reasonable compromise. While their input is valid, I don't think we should let them prevent the community as a whole from reaching some kind of middle ground. --Butseriouslyfolks
Delete per everyone above. Lacks notability. Arbustoo 05:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school. Sorry. Lankiveil 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep.Award winning school. Nice article with good references. --JJay 12:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trivial parts of the article have been removed (see [7]). As for notability, the school is a Blue Ribbon school ... placing it in the top 10% of schools in California. Surely a nationally-recognised school can be considered notable. Most of the arguments to delete (including the nom's) so far have consisted of claims that it is "just not notable" without any explanation or justification. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Double (Mariners)[edit]

Seattle Mariners sports trivia. A whole lot of asserted notability is burdened on a single play, but no evidence to back it up. What's next, "The Bunt (Sacramento River Cats)"? ~ trialsanderrors 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the references provided, neither of the sources even refer to it by this title (the two footnotes which use the citations seem like afterthoughts that have little to nothing to do with said play). From a cursory search, I find nothing that does. Unless it can be properly sourced such that notable media have referred to it as such, this is not encyclopedic. The Catch it ain't. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the recently deleted "Immaculate Rejection" article, this is a neologism without the sourcing to demonstrate that it has gained any traction as a sports or slang term. Individual plays within a game or sport are almost never notable and this is no exception. Otto4711 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article stands now, it is not fit for Wikipedia. However, if you give me a month, the I think I can transform this article such that it is fit for Wikipedia. For instance, I've already found one article in a major newspaper referring to the play as "The Double" (it took about 15 seconds to find that article). If I am unable to bring the article up to standards, then I will bring it up for AfD again myself. Pablothegreat85 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Changed my vote to delete. See below. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The AfD runs for five days; that should be sufficient time for multiple editors to come up with multiple nontrivial sources. As for the newspaper link, it's definitely better than nothing, but at the same time, it seems somewhat trivial. The title "The Double" in the story might just be creative headlining, seeing as how the story doesn't refer to it as "The Double" (in so many words) once; it would be akin to claiming that (from the same story) "The quiet man" is one of Martinez's nicknames. It's a start though... --Kinu ^t/_c 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I don't have time right now to re-write the article (I'm working on my thesis), so that's why I need a little extra time. More reliable sources referring to it as "The Double" are here, here, here, and here. Pablothegreat85 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reluctantly, I have to change my vote to delete (I am a Mariners fan). I really can't find any sources about the term (as opposed to using the term). Pablothegreat85 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - note that per WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." Otto4711 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't exactly a Shot heard 'round the world. It is already mentioned in the Mariners' article under their history, which is abundantly sufficient. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:NN. Every team that just barely makes the playoffs in every sport does so because of some play or another. I'm awaiting some serious sorting for the assertions that this one double saved professional baseball in Seattle or that most Mariners' fans recall it vividly to this day, and I admit I'm hugely skeptical. RGTraynor 16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This play occurred after the Mariners had already made the playoffs. As a Mariners fan, I can say that in did save pro baseball in Seattle and most Mariners fans recall it vividly. I don't think that's the problem with this article. The problem is that the article asserts that the play is called "The Double" in the article, but there are too few reliable sources referring to it as "The Double." Pablo 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, our inclusion criterion for individual sports moments is that they make a couple of "key moments in baseball history" lists. If the event is only relevant to the Mariners franchise it's sufficient to cover it in the Mariners article (as it is now). Only if it transcendents franchise history it makes sense to single it out in an individual article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply I'm not arguing that it should have its own article. Pablo 02:59, 28 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 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Bible College[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited institution. Was nominated in November as Vanispamcruftisement, and ended with no consensus (two keeps, three deletes). Its been on wikipedia four for years with few edits. Until I researched it a few days ago, the article didn't even mention its lack of accreditation.Arbustoo 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Not accredited, lacks WP:RS, and notability. Arbustoo 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lack of accreditation is not abnormal for bible colleges. The schools is reasonably large and well known within the Christian community in Seattle. The article needs improved references and more work but it satisifed WP:ORG and is notable. Provide sources, don't delete it. mako (talk•contribs) 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created in April 2003, which is over 4 years ago. If it is so "well-known" why hasn't it been expanded or sourced in the last four years? Offer proof for your claims that is passes ORG. Arbustoo 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not adequately notable jamesgibbon 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the keeper's comments are equally true of traffic schools, but it still doesn't make them notable. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Should be better sourced, but it appears to be somewhat notable, 3520 ghits, 17 gnews archive hits. - Crockspot 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned before Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test and telling how many hits is a pointless exercise. This article has been on wikipedia for FOUR YEARS. Explain HOW it is notable NOT how many hits at google you found. Arbustoo 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been relisted for more opinions. Arbustoo 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per WP:N (not even alleged so actually could be speedied) and WP:V not one source. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any non-trivial independent sources as required by WP:N. News archive stories on Google News and LexisNexis are mainly concerned with the trial of a driver who killed a student at the College, and don't give significant coverage to the college itself. EALacey 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a single source indicating that this is a notable institution. Lankiveil 09:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. My concern here is not that the article is four years old, it's that during these four years, nobody has gone and actually improved the article, save for one spammer who modified the article early this or late last year. If that's the case, there's probably no interest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't make compelling notability claims, and sinc it is practically abandoned it's unlikely it'll ever get any. Coren 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it has been online for four years, and STILL looks like a crappy stub, DELETE. Jmlk17 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability. I do not view the article's age or the number of times it has been edited to be in any way relevant to the notability of the subject. Just as inclusion is not an indicator of notability, inactivity is not an indicator of non-notability. That said, the article does not prove the topic's notability and I was unable to find secondary sources about the College. The 17 Google News hits are mostly about present/former students of the College (especially one who was killed in a motorcycle accident). As for the regular Google hits (2200 excluding Wikipedia mirrors), most seem to be trivial directory entries. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited institution. 768 ghits, and no gnews hits. Arbustoo 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Arbustoo 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: DBTS is one of the few independent fundamental Baptist schools of higher education that have been independent and government accredited nationwide, let alone in Michigan. Yes, there are places like Bob Jones and Pensacola, but smaller independent seminaries with definite ties to a "father" local church are rare. - NDCompuGeek 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:NDCompuGeek created the article, but failed to mention that. He also said it is "accredited," but it is not, according to the United States Department of Education. What's your sourcing? Accreditation or not it doesn't matter, where are some sources that show this pass WP:ORG? Arbustoo 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Yes, I started the article, from one of the "needed articles" lists on some project - sorry, I forgot which project. As for accreditation, I was under the impression that it is MDOE accredited. I looked it up, and I guess it isnt, so I stand corrected - and I apoligize. Even without accreditation though, I still vote keep.

On a side note, why the personal venomous attack? It's only an AFD.... If someone wanted to gather further information about the article, the "history" link is only a few clicks away. I don't see how it mattered to my vote - it's not like I "failed to mention that" on purpose or with some agenda or something.... - NDCompuGeek 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack. 1) You said it was accredited, but its not, and 2) you didn't mention your connection to it. It doesn't matter for the "vote" per se, but it is an important part to divulge. You still haven't supplied evidence for notability. Arbustoo 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as described above, school has notable characteristics. besides, any AfD that uses "non-accredited" as a "reason" for deletion has my keep vote. Alansohn 05:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of notability? --Butseriouslyfolks 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, any degree-granting institution is "notable"Chickenboner 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Described as what? What significance? What sources? I showed the creator of the page, NDCompuGeek, to be factually wrong-- it is not accredited, but the creator of the page claims it is. What sources are you basing "keep" on? Arbustoo 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an "independent fundamental Baptist schools" in Michigan. You know full well that ghits and gnews hits are invalid justifications for deletion, and I would strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test, as it seems clear that you have never read that section, or any of the rest of the article, before. I know that you have an issue with "non-accredited institution" but use of the fact as part of a nomination is inexcusable. Alansohn 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What part of fails WP:ORG is confusing? Before the word "unaccredited" appears the word is "unnotable." If it was accredited, it would be an automatic keep in my book. It is not and thus was mentioned upfront. The flipside is if I failed to mention it was not accredited I'd be criticized for it, and not offering important details about this place. By the way, I've created several articles about schools that aren't accredited.
    - Did you read Google Test? Part of it reads, a gtest "be useful as a negative test," but not to claim "a large number of hits" makes "a subject notable."
    - I'm going to ask again: What significance? What sources? I showed the creator who's claims you based your vote on, NDCompuGeek, to be factually wrong-- it is not accredited. What sources are you basing "keep" on?Arbustoo 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked through the first few pages of ghits and can't find any source that is independent and substantial. It may exist, it may or may not be notable, but if there are no sources what is the basis for the article? --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unlike Alansohn, I am quite comfy with the use of accreditation and relative G-hits as gauges of the notability of a college and wonder what the fuss is about; despite his disagreement, there is nothing "invalid" or "inexcusable" about either position. What is black-letter policy on Wikipedia, however, is the absolute, irreducible requirement that all articles contain reliable, independent, third-party sources which are more than trivial mentions. Without those sources, any argument that colleges should be notable absent accreditation is moot. Ravenswing 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Can you point me to the relevant Wikipedia policy that requires deletion of unaccredited schools, or are you just making this one up? Alansohn 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are few Wikipedia policies requiring the deletion of anything, so you might as well put that straw man away. That being said, since "school has notable characteristics" was the justification for your Keep !vote in defiance of WP:V, you admit that there are notability standards for such institutions beyond WP:V; heck, your general position that all high schools are fundamentally notable is of a piece with that. Formal accreditation is generally accepted in the academic world as one of the fundamentals of notability, even by seminaries. You may not agree, and that's your privilege, but you don't get to reject black-letter policy in one moment and in the next deride people because - like yours - their argument isn't explicit black-letter policy. Ravenswing 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As long as we acknowldge that there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that supports your original research that accreditation confers notability, while non-accreditation makes a school non-notable. As such, your vote is invalid and should be ignored.Alansohn 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WHOA you just broke WP:CIVIL. How about this Alansohn, you insert sources that demonstrate notability, which justifies a reason for inclusion. The burden of proof belongs to those who want to keep the article because one cannot prove a negative. You prove WP:NOTE and I'll withdraw the afd, but until then see WP:DICK. Arbustoo 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Despite the nominator's claim, there are actually nine gnews archive hits since 1980. Is that not multiple and non-trivial enough to meet WP:ORG? Crockspot 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Further A lexis nexis search for all available dates returns 500 news hits. - Crockspot 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No. I've just looked at each and every one of those nine hits, and all of them are trivial mentions: Soandso got his degree there, Suchandsuch was a teacher there. Not a single one of them, as WP:V requires, are about the school. If you come up with any articles that are genuinely about the school, let us know. Ravenswing 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a 500 hit return from Lexis Nexis. Don't have time to run through them now though. - Crockspot 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: LexisNexis apparently does not recognize quotes in the normal search, so I reran it advanced, only 11 hits total. However, this is still substantially more hits than the "zero" claimed in the nomination. - Crockspot 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That link of the "11 hits" does not work; it comes up as "The credentials for this user were either missing or invalid." I just searched lexis-nexis (with the advance search feature). It searches 20,000 news sources over the last 40 years and it came up with ONLY 11 hits. They are all trival under headlines like: "Faith notes," two articles about "DEATH NOTICES," and "Balch Springs pool to celebrate summer opening today with a Splash."
- They are ALL trival. I don't see how you can honestly vote "keep" let alone "strong keep." Based on that search of 20,000 sources, this really should be deleted. No notability: not even descent local coverage. --C56C 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for changed vote and suggestion. - Crockspot 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete absolutely lacking in RS. --C56C 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, accredited institution or not, their periodical, the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal published since spring 1996, seems to be found in a number of libraries and gets quite a few ghits. First search Worldcat carries over 150 articles from the journal. The periodical is notable, so is the school. No wikipedia policy or guideline excludes non-accredited schools. --Dual Freq 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The journal is $10.00 for two years or you can get free downloads at their website. Not including the seminary itself the journal appears to be in three schools, and only on a CD. As Alansohn, who voted keep above explained, google hits do not equate with popularity, but even that is less than 800 hits many of which are on people's resumes, wikipedia, and ie not WP:RS to show notability. Is that the best reason for keeping it? Three schools have a journal of theirs on CD, whose articles are for free online? To argue the periodical is notable, how widespread is it (other than the three CDs at libraries or the free downloads)? Arbustoo 05:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Worldcat database said 30 libraries, so at least that many. As for the journal, annual publication $10 for 2 years thats $5 per issue. The New England Journal of medicine says $149 for 52 issues, that's $2.86 per issue. I'm not sure how the subscription cost matters, unless you think it is notable that they charge more than the NJM for a subscription. --Dual Freq 05:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three libraries have a complete serial titled Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. Others like "McAlister Library" have some issues, but stopped their subcription in 2000. For the record "New England Journal of medicine" has 1,610,000 ghits and "Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal" has 720 (including wikipedia). One would think that such a popular journal, as you claim, would break at least 1,000 google hits. Arbustoo 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you get the number 3, the page you linked shows 26 and the Firstsearch db I can't link to says 30. --Dual Freq 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link I have has only 4 (including Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary itself). I searched by serial to get the libraries that has the whole collection. 26 appears to be the libraries that contain parts or all of the serial including digtial only collections and missing collections (If you click on some of the libraries, while it appears it in their catalog the issues come up as "missing"). Arbustoo 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, with a long history. --Jason Gastrich 06:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC))This user now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting[reply]

It should be noted that this user was blocked under at least one sockpuppet at the time of this post. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Steven_Taylor. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- An AFD is a discussion not a vote. What part of WP:ORG or WP:CORP does this meet? Arbustoo 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy to discuss. Your primary concerns seem to be that you think it's unnotable (you don't really say why, though) and that it is unaccredited. I think it's notable[8], as it has been around for over 25 years. Secondly, accreditation isn't critical to Christian universities and shouldn't factor in much when it comes to whether or not a school should have a Wikipedia article. --Jason Gastrich 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1) Why did you link to a google search for Detroit Baptist Seminary (note: without quotes)? Search for "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" in quotes it brings up ONLY 810 ghits. Moreover, ghits do not prove notability. 2) Accreditation has nothing to do with voting against. 3) How does this meet WP:ORG or WP:CORP? Arbustoo 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I linked it because it shows that they have a valid address linked to Google, as other businesses and universities do. I'm not going to get into an argument with you and it seems that you're quite passionate about this issue. I'll study WP:ORG and consider contributing more to this page. Thanks, --Jason Gastrich 06:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Typing in Detroit Baptist Seminary (with no quotes) instead of "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" to get an address proves what? You can get a valid address at its official website. I don't understand your point. Arbustoo 06:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's just an interesting and helpful fact that some may have overlooked. If you type "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" it doesn't come up. If you type "Detroit Baptist Seminary" it does. A map with their address and directions comes up. I believe this means that they have validated their address with Google, as that's what my organization had to do to have such a listing. --Jason Gastrich 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What does having a valid address mean about its notability? Did you really just link a wikipedia page to a google search of your own organization? Arbustoo 06:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, really. No independent non-trivial sources. It might have "notable characteristics" but it fails the primary notability criterion. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor organisation, fails notability, just plainly unencyclopedic. Shot info 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NDCompuGeek. --JJay 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Explain that. You voted keep "per" the creator of the article who claimed that it is accredited (its not), and that he thinks notable, but doesn't have sources for it. This is NOT A VOTE. What sources prove notability? Arbustoo 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete This articles faces the classic problem when we have no non-trivial reliable sources. There is simply nothing we can say about it other than that it exists. The seminary is at this point not notable. If someone can present non-trivial reliable sources I will be happy to change my opinion. JoshuaZ 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete - I am changing my !vote to delete, and suggesting to the proponents of keeping this article that they write a new article titled Inter-City Baptist Church, and use the content of the current article as a subsection. I have taken the liberty of saving the content of the current article in the edit history of my own sandbox here, where you can easily retrieve it if the article is deleted. The seminary is intimately tied to the church, and I believe that the church would be easier to assert notability. - Crockspot 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. MetsFan76 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Non-trivial reliable sources are absent. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various above (RGT). I thought Gastrich was forever banned from editing...? Eusebeus 06:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need more easily accesible information, not less. People here are just so delete button happy. What's wrong with you? If you don't like the forum, or have something to contribute, then edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyMac007 (talk • contribs) 09:23, May 3, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Pasha[edit]

Non-notable subject and only editor appears to the subject of the article RossPatterson 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tagged the article with {{coi}} and {{unreferenced}} tags... if there is to be any hope of a keep, this needs to be sourced per WP:RS and WP:BLP, and not just be an autobiography. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm almost certain this is a re-creation. I think I speedied another article with this title a week or two ago. Dppowell 03:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I've been watching this article for several months to see if it would get better, and its history goes back to August 2006. RossPatterson 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources have been added that suggest subject is notable, including substantial media coverage. Article should stand. User:Demille 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --R e m i 08:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although it might be vanity, I think that the info here is unbiased and reasonable. - Richard Cavell 09:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable, but I suggest a clean-up if the article survives this AfD. Acalamari 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the AfD nomination, the article has undergone significant changes, especially the addition of 13 sources (see [9]). The subject is notable and the article has been significantly cleaned up. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minutes to Midnight (album). - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Things Give You Away[edit]

Non notable Linkin Park song. Not a single and the article doesn't seem to define notability. Possibly an example of over zealous fans creating articles on non notable items when they could be condensed into an album page. Rehevkor 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any appropriately sourced content to Minutes to Midnight (album), with no prejudice to have an article on the song assuming it ever becomes a notable single. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. I see nothing to merge. The only source is a fansite posting of a supposed magazine article, which is far from reliable. If this is released as a single then the article can be re-established with such quaint things as facts and sources. Otto4711 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Otto. Standard practice here. --W.marsh 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. I agree completely. No single, no notability, no article.

TeamOverload 13:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I can't this every growing into a very good article. mako (talk•contribs) 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright can we just do something with it already then? TeamOverload 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it alone. Why bother with it? Linkin Park has talked about the song.

And that makes it notable enough for Wikipedia how? Rehevkor 14:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information on this song has been on a lot of fansites. It is not nonsense. The page isn't hurting any one.

You didn't answer the question. Rehevkor 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a petty question, but ok. Linkin Park wrote the song. That is reliable. LP Association, LP:Fuse, and other LP sites have all kinds of stuff like that. Just seems like a waste of energy to me.

LP may have written it. It may be "reliable", whatever you mean by that. But is it notable? It's not a single. It's not even been released. No awards. Nothing. Is wikipedia a LP fan site now? You can sourse an article as much as you like, but it doesn't make it notable. If you think otherwise, edit the article and write why it's notable, because right now, there's nothing to say it is. Rehevkor 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to album page, as the bit about the solo is useful info to record. The song as itself, however, is not currently notable enough to warrant a page of its own. U-Mos 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neural Reality[edit]

Unsourced original research. --Infrangible 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be WP:OR --Haemo 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OR violation. Dppowell 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This appears to be a common 'invention' used as a discussion point, to explore cognition. There is even an attempt at a website, but strangely no further developed than the article. A number of papers mention the concept, but again, to explore other topics. This is too much a dicdef/neologism to stand by itself. That it doesn't even have links to the available web mentions is amazing, but they wouldn't show the concept as a separate domain. Shenme 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be improved and may have to be modified substantially, but the concept appears to be firmly established ([10]). Stammer 06:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:OR. Acalamari 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably established to support an argument on a messageboard somewhere jamesgibbon 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I'd like to throw in WP:BOLLOCKS as well. Someguy1221 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks with 188 hits on GScholar.Stammer 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my previous statement, bollocks for the claim that "Virtual Reality [is] clearly distinguishable from what is perceived as the 'real world.'" Looking at the link provided by Shenme, this may be a misinterpretation of the actual theory, presuming such a concept actually exists in real science. Someguy1221 18:17, 29 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 CSD A7 as previously tagged. The entire article was "[article title] is a [type of] company that [does this]." Even if Nitrosell does meet WP:CORP, all versions meet speedy criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrosell[edit]

Non-notable company fails WP:CORP --Infrangible 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No corporate info, no news bits, no WP:RS. Very buzzwordy. It's almost like they did this to announce their company. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just speedied this as an A7. Spam page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dppowell (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Ow. One sentence of 6-7 buzzwords. It's at best an ad-stub. (Their web site isn't clueing me in much better) Shenme 04:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given Up[edit]

Non-notable, un-released Linkin Park song. Nothing to suggect it's the next single other than what appears to be an advertisement for WB. Even if it is going to be a single, it falls under WP:NOT#CBALL. Rehevkor 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice should it be released or otherwise become notable. Otto4711 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. YechielMan 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acalamari 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless truly relevant-specific information is posted... User:Cmarquezu 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source/content Theturtleguy 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? - is there an official announcement on its release? Is it on their record label's schedule? A source is needed, otherwise Merge to the album - at least until there is a confirmation. - eo 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, as it is not announced as a single and the only real info on the article is how to play the song on the website. Which is not encyclopediac AT ALL. U-Mos 15:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nsuers[edit]

Neologism. --Infrangible 01:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This almost looks like an A7 speedy to me... Dppowell 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dicdef as well. - Aagtbdfoua 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All it says is that these are people who graduated from a particular school. Dicdef. However, note the existence of Yalies, although having all those people and being able to say why they are important helps justify the list. Shenme 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but a dicdef. Note that the NSUers website is referenced from North South University, which is all that's required. BTLizard 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced neologism. Yalie is irrelevant to this discussion. That term has been around for decades, if not centuries, and Yale University has a much greater reputation than North South University. DarkAudit 14:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the reasons listed above. Acalamari 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 04:19, 28 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 parent album articles. What and where to merge, as always, is an editorial decision, as there is a clear interest in doing so, histories will be left intact. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreword (Linkin Park song)[edit]

Non notable, non single, 13 second long song, article contains no notable info or sources. An exaple of over zealous article creation. Rehevkor 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, non notable non singles with no or unreliable sources:

Merge & redirect most. "Forward" page might make an interesting note on the album's page, but "This is a thirteen second intro to the multi-million second studio album" is a bit of a stretch for independent notability. Some are just "$SONG is the $NUMBER track on the album" statements. Several others appear to be solely an extended quote from a member of the band...WP is not a collection of liner notes. "Session" is only one that seems to assert real notability. DMacks 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, Session does has some notability, but there's not enough info to warrent it's own page.. Can be merged into the album page. Rehevkor 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We're already in AfD land, so let it run its course, but note that if merge/redirect was the initial goal, could have just been bold and done so without needing admin help or AfD noms. DMacks 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all except Session - the Grammy nomination and film usage is (barely) enough to establish notability (but these must be sourced). The rest are, as noted, quotes about the songs from a magazine interview. Otto4711 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergethese have no notability, except Session, and most cannot be sourced easily Patar knight 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the songs to the appropriate Linkin Park album(s) articles where they are listed, or to the band if they are true singles with no album afiliation. I too find it very odd and confusing that the AfD nominator put the songs up for deletion, and then proposed redirection instead. Whatever. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Wasn't thinking I guess, changed it now.. Rehevkor 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - what precisely is the WP criterion of notability for a song nowadays? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 04:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skiena salad[edit]

No Google hits for the topic. Not sure if its a local-interest or a certain restaurant's item? PROD (for "uncited") was removed without adding cites. DMacks 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... unless someone can show me what a "Skiena salad" is, this violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) I wonder if it goes well with a Spanjo...[reply]
Delete. The article demonstrates what it is, but not only is it not notable, but it would seem that the bit talking about Big H sauce is entirely unsourced, and just sounds wrong. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so, it's a salad consisting of iceberg lettuce, and an over-the-counter commercially produced dressing, which is no longer made. That's barely even a salad, let alone a notable one. --Haemo 06:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Google hits, and the claim that Big H sauce was removed from sale due to its resemblance to McDonald's special sauce is implausible. --Metropolitan90 08:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS quite apart from being a recipe - I don't believe for one moment that McDonalds could force something off the market for "resembling their special sauce" or there'd be no Thousand Island Dressing on the market — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We get zero Google hits for a foodstuff the article admits cannot be made because one of the principal ingredients no longer exists, and furthermore even if it could there's no consensus on the recipe. There's no claim of historical interest (eg favourite food of the Beatles, Joe di Maggio or Dwight D Eisenhower) either. And why is it called a Skiena salad anyway? BTLizard 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a non-notable salad. Why do we need an article on that? Acalamari 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. Could have speedied --C56C 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all votes above, no notability on the web, and cannot be made anymore (thus losing even more notability). Patar knight 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no google hits for this salad if I remove anything wikipedia flavored (+"skiena salad" -site:wikipedia.org). Article creator has only made precisely one contribution - this article. WP:SNOW, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not prove the notability of the salad nor was I able to find multiple reliable secondary sources to prove notability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fox[edit]

The only claim to notability in the article is that "Fox briefly played guitar in the alternative rock band Ween", but the Ween article doesn't list "Jeff Fox" as being part of the band, however briefly. (But does list musicians with very minor contributions). Coren 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability listed, no sources. Link to Ween shows he wasn't there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty common name, but if you Google him with his magazine, "Barracuda", you'll see more 3rd party coverage. Dppowell 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, Dennis & Guy. Deiz talk 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:03, 28 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 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Erazed[edit]

This band, and the albums articles that will be added to this nomination, do not seem to exist. Despite one of the albums allegedly getting platinum status on sales in the UK, there are no hits on Google for the band, their albums or anything else related to the band Flowerpotman talk|contribs 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am also adding:

Delete all One way to tell a group of articles is a hoax, or at least a COI, is if only one person wrote all of them. Bingo. The page histories show that all contributions (with trivial exceptions) come from the same user, who doesn't yet have a solid track record. I'll leave him a note. YechielMan 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this is the second total fantasy band I've seen. Always make me chuckle.Madmedea 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup. I have to admit that The Andromeda-Milky Way Collision sounds like a title Muse would come up with. ;O) Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notable. --C56C 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It's surprising the trouble some people will willingly take for something to trite. Coren 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as total fantasy. tomasz. 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced articles. LittleOldMe 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (music) and comments above. I highly suspect this is advertising for a band with the myspace account name "Citizenerazed" ... unlikely that they have any platinum albums, though. Unless, maybe it's a secret music billboard? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who clichés[edit]

Delete - for all the same reasons the similar articles on video game plot clichés, video game item clichés, animation clichés, comic book clichés, stand up comedy clichés and even the list of clichés were deleted. Otto4711 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article is so stupid...get it? It's a cliche! Oh, never mind. Delete. YechielMan 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a Doctor Who buff and I don't think it's 'stupid'. Maybe rename it to recurring themes or situations or something. I don't see the grounds for deletion especially as the nominator can't be bothered to tell me what they are, as opposed to pointing out that 'other crap doesn't exist'. It's not an indiscriminate list of information, it points out recurring story ideas and plot devices which are used in the same way in otherwise very different stories over a long span of time. It can be expanded and improved but why should it be deleted? Nick mallory 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOR, fails WP:NPOV, unsourced. --Folantin 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even for a cliche list this is weak. A lot of these are common fictional tropes that are in no way specific to Doctor Who.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, probably can't be sourced to secondary sources to prove notability/that anyone else has considered that these are clichés. Moreschi ^Talk 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, OR, and seems generally unencyclopedic anyway. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm a Doctor Who buff and I do think it's impermissible. Chockfull of speculation, POV, original research and a good bit of nonsense as well. Corridors in set design? 1960s female characters screaming? The good guys get framed as part of the plot? Using the customary widgets to solve plots? Sheesh. What shows don't? Ravenswing 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet Another Cliché List. JuJube 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of information that fails WP:NOR. Acalamari 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an overall useless list of little importance, and these are used in all shows. It's also unsourced, and unencylopedic. Patar knight 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE: Just a huge pile of OR, and such a stretch much of it is: Female characters who scream, references to previous episodes. Andrew Levine 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rather hopelessly original research ... I'm certain one or two of these could be attributed to a source, but a few clichés does not an article make. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salvatore Leone to List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_III#Salvatore_Leone, and Lance Vance to List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City#Lance_Vance. Sandstein 09:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Leone[edit]

Strong ~~Delete~~ Redirect Not notable enough for his own article per both WP:FICT and WP:N. Only person who truly contests this is some anon editor who's argument quite possibly falls into WP:ILIKEIT. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's become apparent that I need to add other articles to this list; I hereby nominate the following:

- This list is subject to additions. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My kneejerk reaction is to call this fancruft, but Grand Theft Auto is more of a legitimate cultural phenomenon than most other games (many of which somehow manage to land uncontested WP articles for all their characters, big and small). Dppowell 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me, taking into account WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, how that merits this article's existence? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's hard to come to a conclusion in the absence of any sources. If there are reliable sources regarding this subject then they need to be added to the article before the AFD closes. If the article remains unsourced then delete. Otto4711 05:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I agree with Klptyzm. Both character's are not notable enough for their own articles and every time someone does try to make this article exist it becomes a mess. Not to mention that they both already have been covered in the "List of characters" for their respective GTA games. .:Alex:. 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to stand alone as an article, and his history is already covered in the lists of GTA III and GTA:LCS pages, respectively. Tarc 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated another article; examine it and vote accordingly, please. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both characters' notability are insufficient to warrant their own articles. JuJube 18:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect both to their respective sections in the "List of [GTA III for Leone / Vice City for Vance] characters" articles. These are both certainly viable search terms, but the lack of independent sources specific to these characters shows, unfortunately, that they don't meet WP standards for standalone articles. (Of course, I hate deleting almost anything GTA, but rules are rules and this isn't an IAR case.) -- Kicking222 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote per your reasoning; I totally agree with you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect both keep the material, its well written, but they can be put into sections of lists of GTA characters, as they lack individual notability. Patar knight 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure all of it's been written somewhere. Needs to be plain redirected, no merge. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a query. If we do redirect, could we at least remove their names from the characters template? .:Alex:. 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hell yes. Please do so now, if possible. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:22, 29 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 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film and television clichés[edit]

Delete - for all the same reasons the similar articles on video game plot clichés, video game item clichés, animation clichés, comic book clichés, stand up comedy clichés and even the list of clichés were deleted. Otto4711 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inseparable original research. Rhobite 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that this article tagged as unreferenced for four months now with no sources added whatsover further underscores the fact that this topic is inherently OR. As has been discussed in the prior cliche list AfDs, the very concept of a cliche is ill-defined and POV, and there is no way to source this without synthesizing information to draw one's own conclusion. Krimpet (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. YechielMan 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aren't these cliché articles becoming cliché? No sources, completely OR, unencyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — As per precedent and previous comments. — Grstain | Talk 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet Another Cliché List. JuJube 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the reasons listed above. Acalamari 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because fun and fascinating articles like this keep Wikipedia interesting and hip! :) --24.154.173.243 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per everything above, also many grammar and spelling mistakes, and is in an (almost) unreadable list format for the duration of the article. Unreferenced and unsourced. Patar knight 21:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong Delete" copied from evil overlord list. 70.184.32.37 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-written article on a notable topic that merely needs references. References could be found, since many articles have been written about these. I don't see why video game plot clichés, video game item clichés, animation clichés, comic book clichés, stand up comedy clichés and even the list of clichés have any relevance to this AfD since most of those are too narrow or too broad to exist well as articles anyway. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is one of the biggest crap-magnets on Wikipedia, compiled by hundreds (thousands?) of passing editors adding anything they think is a cliché. Extreme OR. Croxley 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. The subject of clichés in film and television is surely an encyclopedic one for which there are many sources, but this article is too much like the "Evil Overlord" list. So, delete without prejudice to proper recreation. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wenatchee Valley Mall[edit]

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. This a pathetic stub since November 2006, with little hope of expansion for want of sources. 159 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' listings, and so far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community of 5,757 population. Ohconfucius 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep unless we're going to AfD everything else in Category:United States mall stubs. This doesn't seem any more or less notable than most of those. Dppowell 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ohconfucius 04:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's an essay, not a policy. It merely reflects some opinions of its authors. --Cyrus Andiron 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dppowell. What makes this one any less notabe than the other 342 malls in the category? --Cyrus Andiron 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because a mall only has x amount of GHits doesn't mean it's non-notable. Fort Saginaw Mall hardly has any GHits, but the few webpages that do mention that mall give valuable, non-trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 12:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This article doesn't even assert notability, none of the above comments supply any sources for notability, the article has no reliable sources, fails WP:N, and fails WP:NOT#DIR. Wikipedia is not a mall directory. Failing so many policies and guidelines, I don't understand how an argument can be made for inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added several reliable sources to this article -- it's still kinda stub class, but now it should at least pass WP:RS; furthermore, it's no longer a directory page.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Added the GLA to the article. Too small to be considered a regional mall, and no other claims to notability. See also Shopping mall and the proposed notability guideline (labelled "rejected") WP:MALL where there was discussion of factors making a mall notable or not. Edison 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability. Don't need to look any further when it fails this test. Dimitrii 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have added much more information to this article, as well as many sources. It may be a dinky mall, but it's obviously faring well, and it serves a fairly wide market. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Where is the assertion of notability? Yes it exists but what else? Vegaswikian 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the additions by User:TenPoundHammer, including numerous sources (see [11]). For those desiring an assertion of notability, I think "Wenatchee Valley Mall is the only mall within an 80-mile radius of East Wenatchee, and thus serves a population of over 200,000 people" qualifies as one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, although fully sourced thanks to good work by TenPoundHammer, I still have major reservations about notability of the mall. Most of the links/refs posted are either 1/very local, 2/for property agents marketing the property, 3/press release of companies which have set up store, so quality of sources and notability is still insufficient to bring this up to the standards we are accustomed to seeing on wikipedia. Ohconfucius 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that the sources are local didn't/doesn't bother me, but the other two points you raise did/do. It's obvious that notability is barely met, but I base my recommendation to keep primarily on these three sources. It's not the among the most notable malls, of course, but I'd rather err on the side of caution for now. After all, the sources noted in the article are only those available online ... there are likely more print sources out there. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An important large mall in its region and the article is very referenced. --Oakshade 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's definitely not a large mall, but I think that notability is met at least somewhat. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champlain Centre South[edit]

This was bundled with its twin, Champlain Centre North, in a previous AfD. ~~For some reason, North got deleted, but this one stayed, even though the consensus was to delete both.~~ This one was kept because it had been listed twice before in other bundle AfDs (one keep, one no consensus). The sources on this article aren't that good, and a Google search turns up almost nothing, so I think the page should be deleted; the mall obviously fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Former shopping mall has nothing to show it was notable. Edison 22:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil rankin[edit]

A high school teacher, former college professor, and perhaps textbook editor. Unreferenced article with no signs of meeting WP:BIO, WP:PROF or any other notability criterion. Aagtbdfoua 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning above. - Aagtbdfoua 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, suspect this may also be a case of WP:AUTO. Dppowell 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can say how this person is notable. Acalamari 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because article meets WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and notability. --24.154.173.243 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No assertion of notability. Should have been a CSD. StuffOfInterest 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, for lack of WP:ATT and little hope of attaining it. For people who treat WP:N as policy: barely fails WP:PROF--he seems exactly an average professor, which is useful to remind ourselves when we try to decide what an above-average professor's biography would look like. (Note also, there is a Prof. Neil Rankin in Economics who is extemely notable, so if it an article on him is ever created, it should be kept) --Myke Cuthbert 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging from the photo, he didn't even write any textbooks, just edit them & not mentioned on the cover. First time I've seen a practical use for the photos of book covers. DGG 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of references. Notability of academics is a debatable issue, but when an article has so few sources it doesn't provide much reason to keep it. EdJohnston 01:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. JuJube 06:20, 30 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 CSD G10, blatant attack page, probably an A7 even if it wasn't. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Fade[edit]

Nonsense Fontenot 1031 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page. Speedied. Dppowell 03:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Square Mall[edit]

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. This a pathetic stub since April 2006, and there appears to be little hope of expansion for want of sources. The one referenced article is but a trivial mention, and speaks of its demolition. 64 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' listings, and so far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Ohconfucius 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, would argue keep if it still existed. Dppowell 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something still exists or not has no bearing on its notability and inclusion or deletion. As WP:NOTE says, "Notability is generally permanent": it can generally (for Wikipedia purposes) only increase, never decrease. If it was notable when it existed, then it is still notable after its demolition. Fram 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rebecca 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a vote, but an attempt to come to a consensus. Please give reasons for your vote. Thanks! --Charlene 08:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even seem worth merging into Eau Claire, Wisconsin. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said before, Google is not the ultimate factor in notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, no sources, no evidence of notability, not even an assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a mall directory. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A defunct regional mall of 550,000 square feet GLA. No historical or architectural or other claim to fame. Deserves a sentence in the article on the town. List of stores does not need merging. Edison 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. We need at least something to give at least a hint that there might possibly be some source for notabilityDGG 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Frise 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The poorly source article doesn't even assert notability. Dimitrii 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Square Mall[edit]

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. This stub appears to have little hope of expansion for want of sources. 67 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' or hotels listings, and an article which mentions in passing that it is to be demolished. So far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Ohconfucius 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rebecca 04:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even seem worth merging. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Weak keep~~ Delete. ~~Not a lot in the article, but the mall seems notable enough -- maybe if some Joliet Wikipedian hit the library and came up with more info on this mall, that'd be nice...~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for changing my vote twice, but I'm going with the flow this time. I'm gonna say delete now; I tried to expand this page but it's hopeless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per these other mall articles appearing. Doesn't assert notability. Has no sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Reads like a directory entry. Too many guidelines/policies not being met to even consider keeping this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS, WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless articles like this, and it seems we are getting a clearer understanding of which to keep and which not. DGG 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on a bulldozed shopping mall? Frise 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is there any OR here? The anchors? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There do not seem to be any sources (in Google) that would prove the mall's notability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Merging the content back, while also supported by many here, is an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the writings of William Monahan[edit]

Article is a review of what Monahan has written. This page should be deleted and any important information should be included in the William Monahan article WhiteKongMan 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC). To add to my reason for nominating this I would like to point out [[WP:Not#Dir]. I didn't realiz people couldn't infer that this is why I nominated it. WhiteKongMan 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Many of the articles listed in the list also seem to fail WP:NOTE WhiteKongMan 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy you cite, cuz it says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles."-BillDeanCarter 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We do not need a listing of every single byline of every single magazine that a particular writer has to his credit. This would establish a very problematic precedent for the listing of every single column that an editorialist or op-ed writer ever got. Otto4711 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fer cryin' out loud, it's a bleeding CV. Note the highlights in prose form on William Monahan and nuke this page. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm on your side but what is CV? WhiteKongMan 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Curriculum vitae"—basically the same thing as a resume. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the main article. Many readers may be interested in exploring the subject's short stories and published articles. Listing his published works in the main article does no harm and could be a useful guide for further reading and research. Cleo123 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :: there is no point in divorcing a bibliography from its origin. -- Simon Cursitor 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cleo. List of the writings of William Monahan has a nicely referenced bibliography of which I can say that it would be a waste if we were to throw that down the alley. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most notable writings, if not all of them, into the main article. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: Much of this information is already in the main article; this is an unwarranted fork placing undue weight on the works. Charles Dickens doesn't have a similar article. Arthur Conan Doyle doesn't have a similar article. Neither does Michener, Hemingway, Alger, Burgess, Christie, Wharton, Huxley, Wolfe or any other prolific author I've taken ten minutes out of my life to review. RGTraynor 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mention the most notable works in the main article, but no need to merge this entire list. Croxley 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator doesn't cite a single policy and we can't delete articles just because. Yes there are some very minor things in it, but if they are sourced that is not a problem. Having a separate bibliography makes the main article less cluttered. I would suggest that it was renamed "Writings of William Monahan", though. It doesn't matter if no other author has a similar article, all we need to worry about is to make sure that this article conforms to policy, and from what I can see, it does. Pax:Vobiscum 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Directory, and this article is simply a list of writings, some of which link to Non-Wiki sources. Selected writings should be included in the William Monahan main article. Also, despite the fact that he won an Oscar for his screenplay for the Departed, he is not a better writer than Hemingway, Dickens, etc. Black Harry 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does WP:NOT#DIR apply in this case? There are 3 types of articles that fall under that policy and I don't see how you'd fit this article into any one of those three types. A list is not the same thing as a directory. Pax:Vobiscum 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to William Monahan, deleting insignificant reviews, magazine articles, etc. Peterkingiron 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How sad. There is an article called NBA Draft and countless ancillary articles, one up for FA status at the featured article list called 2003 NBA Draft. I sadly wish I had found another outlet to write about William Monahan. Hemingway, Dickens, David Mamet & etc deserve the same treatment that Monahan got (treatment from me that is). I realize Wikipedians fear that every columnist out there will have his/her work listed one by one, though Monahan was more of an artist, who occasionally wrote a cover story, a book review, etc. If he were a columnist with 50 or so articles per newspaper, then that could be summed up in a paragraph or something for each glob. Showing respect for talent is the best thing you can do and having a complete finite account of a journalist's ouevre does no harm. Are we really only interested in having a full account of the 2003 NBA Draft? Having this list of Monahan's writings is what allowed me to write most of the main article to begin with. I'm already getting a hold of more of his stuff, though I'm looking for a better repository for this information. Life goes on. Mine, not here.-BillDeanCarter 09:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's an eloquent paragraph, but do you have any policy or guideline grounds you'd like to submit as a rationale to Keep? RGTraynor 13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't play that game. I'll say this. William Monahan is notable; that's established. His writings are notable; see the countless mentions of them by New York writers/citizens who lived through those years, especially talking about him after he won his Academy Award. They stirred up shit, his articles, so people remember him. The other good thing about this list I've pulled together, it gives literary context to all his writings, especially the Claude stories that make satirical reference to his career. New York journalists will each tell you their favorite piece of his. I see a problem here, being if the crowd don't know about it then it ain't notable, which is a dangerous way to document history.-BillDeanCarter 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate isn't about Monahan's notability, but rather whether this list is appropriate as its own article. A majority of these could and should be added to his main article, and this list deleted as a result. Black Harry 06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Sorry. I forgot about Wikipedia's high standards and barrier to entry.-BillDeanCarter 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "playing a game." Were I the closing admin, and all I was handed by the Keep proponents was that the subject was a hell of a swell fellow who's notable, I'd reason that the argument was equally as valid for Toilet seats used by William Monahan, Women William Monahan have kissed and Sports teams for which William Monahan has been a season ticket holder, but there wasn't any explicit policy grounds to keep those either. Are you comfy with resting on that argument? RGTraynor 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought I don't think the guys at Featured lists are aware of what's going on here at AfD. Certainly they are doing some interesting stuff, and featuring some great lists (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-30/Featured_list). Compare my List of the writings of William Monahan to those featured lists. I'm sure they would be glad to see this list show up there for promotion one day when completed.-BillDeanCarter 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has failed to cite any policy on why it should be deleted. The article William Monahan is a Featured Article, and it is entirely apropriate to list his works seperately. There are dozens of examples of writers haveing seperate articles for their work (see Category:Bibliographies by author). Tompw (talk) (review) 12:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just cited policy, will that change your mind now? Also, many authors in that category have written multiple books, whereas Monahan 's list is mostly a collection of articles from magazines or newspapers. Would you want me to make a Bibliography for Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated, whose list would be similar WhiteKongMan 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary fork from William Monahan#Man of letters. All of his most significant works all already detailed in that article. Masaruemoto 03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean Masaruemoto? Are you more knowledgeable on this subject than I? I wrote that article and I'm telling you his most significant works are NOT already detailed in that article. Anyways, I'm sure the drivel will continue to pour into here, full of Deletes and I watch the Simpsons, whaz yer fave episode? Wikipedia cannot be MySpace. This is too important of a web site.-BillDeanCarter 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if his most significant works aren't in his main article, its because YOU have FAILED to include them in the article. WhiteKongMan 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an arrogant little shit. A guy (me) comes to Wikipedia, contributes more in writing than WhiteKongMan could ever do in a decade, and you have the gall to tell me I have FAILED? If anyone wants to hear the complete story about Monahan's career as a writer then they'll Keep this list, and let it reaches its end. WhiteKongMan you should leave Wikipedia and let writers do their job.-BillDeanCarter 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tompw, no legitimate reason given for deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge a slimmed down version with William Monahan - I just don't see how notable this list is on its own: many of the entries seem rather trivial. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not citing any useful policy. Slimming down a list that isn't even complete yet? Popular culture (TV eps, Sports matches) is not a standard to be used for notability. Please stop fueling this idiotic AfD. How dumbed-down do we want our culture? What has happened to human beings who actually read an author's works? I just found List of works by Neil Gaiman and what a god damn joy! It's outrageous that this buffoonery wants to eliminate that kind of intrigue.-BillDeanCarter 10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sadistic. I put the List of works by Neil Gaiman up for deletion. Go vote to Keep it or to Delete it.-BillDeanCarter 11:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia simply to prove a point is never advisable. See WP:POINT.Cleo123 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per concerns about no clear policy being cited. This is useful information, and relevant. Merging will make the parent article too long Lurker 11:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say I didn't cite any policy, I would like to ask you to point out a policy about the length of articles. WhiteKongMan 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article size should clear things up for you. Hope you find it useful! Lurker 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If both articles were combined in full, the size wold be about 53 KB. However, many of the writings listed seem non-notable,and could be left out, reducing the size to around 45-48KB, which wouldn't fall under the 'Probably should be divided range (over 60KB). Also, merging wouldn't effect the readability of the main article, as it would just be adding a list. WhiteKongMan 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a Reference a similar debate involing a list of Aaron Sorkin's writings was just settled, with the decision made to delete and merge. And another debate involving Bruno Maddox's writing is also on going, despite BillDeanCarter's efforts to derail the debate by improperly moving the page. Black Harry 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an example of long lists that are separate articles and sections in the author biography, respectively, are: Bibliography of Isaac Asimov and Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien (yes, that is a redirect to a section - I wish more people used those). Also of interest is Category:Bibliographies by author - a whole category of such list articles. Some of these list articles are split out for size reasons, some should probably be merged to the author articles. Carcharoth 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WhiteKongMan noted in a response to a previous comment about that catagory that a majority of those bibliographies involve novels, not a handful of short stories. And the list in question contains mainly articles in newspapers and magazines. Would you like me to make an article on WRKO personality and Boston Herald Columnist Howie Carr's writings? He to has written one novel and numerous other works, but that would immedaitly be deleted, as this article should have been. Black Harry 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Carcharoth 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points if you live in Lalaland and Neverland all at the same time, and haven't figured out yet that Monahan wasn't a columnist and this is an incredibly difficult list to compile.-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever think that the list was difficult to make because the writings on the list are not notable? And since when did the difficulty in writing an article have any relevance concerning whether to keep or delete itBlack Harry 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per basic common sense that what is of value here should be merged to William Monahan. Pointless fork. Eusebeus 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Monahan. Let the editors there decide what to do with the material, such as pruning and consolidating to get the balance right. Carcharoth 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm THE editor at William Monahan. I decided to fork this material because I got a hold of more and more stuff. Have you seen Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson? All of you should be reading instead of voting to eradicate a very difficult list to come by that anyone with a modicum of sense would keep.-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than telling us what we should be reading, perhaps you should read WP:OWN your own self. Whatever your work on various articles, you do not get to decide in isolation how much detail authors are to be accorded, and your contributions are not uniquely exempted from consensus and peer review ... the more so in that you are not the only editor on this article (not counting anon IPs, there are 27 other editors this calendar year). I'd suggest looking for encyclopedias where you could work without your contributions being subject to outside review or editing, but I suspect they don't exist. RGTraynor 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back on the basis on the content; "list" also contains a long section on the criticism of one particular book, apparently removed from the main article as well as the actual list of works--in other words, its two sections of the article pulled out without any reason. There may be some addition previous editing dispute involved, because i can't see the sense of this. DGG 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JOURNALISTS WHO SPAKE OF MONAHAN: Business Week's Jon Fine: "Anyway, Monahan's piece was great, as was most of his stuff he wrote for the Press back then. It's a minor drag that it all seems pretty much lost now, but things have turned out pretty well for him." Author Dawn Eden: "I remember Bill from 10 years ago as charming, libertarian-leaning, with a razor-sharp wit that he used in print to anger as many people as possible. Monahan's most notorious New York Press piece, "Dr. Rosenthal, I Presume" (6/21/95), was a devil's-advocate response to a New York Times op-ed by A.M. Rosenthal that had recommended the United States spend $100 million to eradicate female genital mutilation in Africa." and journalist William Georgiades "A decade ago, Oliver Stone’s one and only novel was kindly reviewed by William Monahan, who went on to write the very funny novel “Light House” (Riverhead). Since then, Monahan has written screenplays for Ridley Scott’s “The Kingdom of Heaven” and Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed,” and this weekend he’s nominated for an Oscar for the latter."-BillDeanCarter 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a bit fleshier than most lists, but the article itself is long enough so splitting out the material makes sense and I thought we were heading toward fleshier lists these days. Keep based on policy, WP:NOT#Dir is not applicable, since this is not a directory, such as a compilation of zip codes for reference purposes, or a list of loosely associated material. If WP:Not#Dir applied, we'd have to say a list of Shakespeare's writings failed the test as well. Likewise, WP:NOTE goes to notability of a subject for an article, not what is included. I fail to find a reason here to delete, other than "I don't like it", or, perhaps, some just don't like Mr. Carter, who is being somewhat uncivil here.38.112.153.190 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the validity of the above comment, please see this. 66.65.54.63 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I forgot to sign in before making the above comment, which is me. I found this page from Wiki's front page, and found the other list via this one - the fact that my comment went on the other one first was simply a question of how I was navigating Wiki at the time. Yes, Mr. Carter seems to have added a bit of canvassing to various other bits of incivility: it did not affect my view. As to the above anonymous contribution, please try to assume a bit of good faith. This is the kind of posting that throws some fuel on what are already flames - I hope the closing administrator will discount those posting that do not seem motivated by the merits of the case.A Musing 13:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Carter has cleary violated WP:Canvas, and he should face repercussions for this, as well as the tone he has taking regarding this and other pet projects of his Black Harry 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read WP:Canvas more closely, and consider it's suggestions for remedial action in a sensible fashion - as noted above, his post had no impact. You may also want to consider whether a single post to one person is a canvass. What "repercussions" are you suggesting - how ominous that "repercussions" sounds! This one's just a guy frustrated with the way others have behaved here thankful that someone's judging on the merits. Now that I've posted and seen a bunch of folks in glass houses running up ready to throw stones, I've got more sympathy for the guy. A Musing 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of the impact his post had, his intent was to get your support to keep one of his pet projects safe from deletion. Also, not sure if sympathy would be considered a legit reason to keep an article. And as for repercussions, I would suggest stripping him of his Barnstar, not only for the canvas thing but also because of the tone he has taken in this debate and others, the attack on people who support these deletions on his userpage, his blatant attempt to sabotage a legit debate on the merits of a Bruno Maddox list by moving the list's page, and his bad-faith nomination of another list for deletion. Black Harry 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Read Here to see another potential violation of WP:Canvas by Carter. I'm not sure how many users responded to that post on this page and voted keep, but this should remove any doubt that Carter was canvassing. He clearly was intent on finding people sympathetic to his cause, and if this isn't canvassing what is? Black Harry 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per 38.112.153.190 above. - Shudda ^talk 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above comment, although I do not agree people should be instructing others whether to vote delete or keep, I do believe this article should not be deleted. A merge would make sense, however as the main article is above 32kB I think it's better to keep them separate. This discussion seems to be very heated on both sides, and I would urge the closing admin to consider WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. - Shudda ^talk 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' or merge. An ego trip seems to be the only validation of this article's continued existence. Someone above suggested leaving it to future editors to prune, consolidate, etc. and that's good advice. The subject matter here is the reason the author obtains an article. While not exactly civil, some sarcastic suggestions above hit the mark exactly.--Buckboard 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: First, establishing a web directory is not allowed. Second, the author is barely sufficiently known to be mentioned. Third, these are trivial articles and transient publications with only slightly more life and peer review than a web posting. Fourth, the stuff, such as it is, should be a single sentence in the author's article. Fifth, the title is unsearchable. Sixth, the information is indescriminate. Is that enough reasons? Utgard Loki 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to actually have a sensible discussion about this list once I've completed it. I come from a background where people share writers with each other, and where people cut out, or point links to each other of what they think is really innovative writing. We're celebrating featured lists in this week's Signpost and it would be great if more bibliographies started showing up at WP:FLC. Lists of writings are in a class of their own because they're almost never trivial.-BillDeanCarter 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible, dispassionate discussion would have been nice, but after a week of insults, spamming nonsense and bad faith noms on this and similar AfDs, perhaps you'll forgive us for a healthy dose of skepticism regarding your professed desire for one at this late date. RGTraynor 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this debate is seven days old, and it appears that most valid points have already been brought up, and that the same opinions are being repeated continually. As such, I believe that this debate should be closed soon, regardless of the outcome. Black Harry 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Quick Note the Bruno Maddox Debate, which involved a similar article, just closed with deletion as the result Black Harry 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am deeply disturbed by some of the arguments being made here. Many of the editors seem to be making arguments based on their personal opinion of or knowledge of (or lack thereof) of the subject.

Monahan is notable because he is a writer, thus a list of his writings are relevant to the major reason he has been included in wikipedia.
One part of the argument seems to be that only "great" writers should have their entire bibliographies listed, but to assemble a bibliography only of so-called "great" writers such as Charles Dickens, who by the way was a journalist as well and who does not have a bibliography, would perpetuate the view that there is a canon of great writers. This idea has been rejected by literary critics, the experts in the field (wikipedia requires that its editors rely on experts, remember?).
Another part of the argument has focused on the idea that these writings are irrelevant and ephemeral, therefore they should not all be listed. To this I would answer, first, that wikipedia is not paper. Second, you do not know what will become relevant or interesting to people in the future. Teturning to Charles Dickens as an example, many of his novels were published in periodicals piece by piece. They were "ephemeral," but of course, they aren't important. Also, let me give examples of other "obscure" writers with lists of works that I have created that might be open to this attack List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood and List of works by Joseph Priestley. One reason that these lists, like the Monahan list, is so useful is because the information is so hard to access anywhere else. Wikipedia is providing a unique service to the world in making this information so easily accessible (in my case, each of these bibliographies is only available in a single book).
One proposal was to list only Monahan's "notable" writings, but who is supposed to decide that? The editor of the page? That doesn't sound like NPOV to me.
Another proposal was to merge the list into the article. The list is much too long to merge into the article, much like the lists I created.
In my opinion, many of these editors are establishing a dangerous precedent. They are essentially arguing: "I don't think this person is important or will be important in the future, so we shouldn't bother to list all of his works." Awadewit ^Talk 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent set by deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of Bruno Maddox less than two days ago. Precedent should count for something. If precedent is ignored, then just merge into the main William Monahan article. Let's be realistic about this - there are only 25 titles on the list, that is not too long to merge (as the above user tried to suggest). Crazysuit 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not complete.-BillDeanCarter 04:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Mall[edit]

~~Unsourced~~ article about this dying mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. ~~This stub appears to have little hope of expansion for want of sources.~~ 51 unique Ghits, most are tourist/directory listings of Jonesboro and its shops, and an assortment of porn sites. So far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Ohconfucius 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPer improvements made since AfD, I still have some reservations about its notability, I'll let the AfD run its course. As others have voted delete, it cannot be closed by my withdrawing the nom. I will downgrade to weak delete. Ohconfucius 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This mall is actually dead completely. I worked there and I live in Jonesboro and this mall will be torn down soon so it should definitely be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.98.16 (talk)
Delete Utterly non-notable. IronDuke 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google is not the ultimate source for notability. ~~As I said on this discussion, x amount of GHits doesn't always indicate notability/non-notability.~~ If some Wikipedian in Jonesboro (perhaps the above user who forgot to sign?) would hit the library or city hall or something and find some archives, that might help. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per these other mall articles appearing. Doesn't assert notability. Has no sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Reads like a directory entry. Too many guidelines/policies not being met to even consider keeping this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I recently added much more information to this article - it's definitely way more than a directory entry now. At the very least, it should pass WP:V and WP:RS now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Frise 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the recent additions to this article, Arkyan's rationale is rather invalid now (maybe it doesn't fully assert notability, but there are at least valid sources, and the page is no longer a mere directory). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per rewrite. For future reference, try not to single out one sole editor's opinion as "invalid" because it can come across as rather incivil and personal. Try something like "Rewritten to address concerns brought up by editors" or something like that. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No harm done, it didn't bother me - just a little heads up because I've run in to a lot of situations (particularly here on AfD where tensions can run high) that people get snappy and take things the wrong way. Oh, and thanks for the rewrite on the article, it's always good to see when editors actually fix problem articles instead of just saying "keep" and waiting for someone else to do it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now referenced and with asserted notability. Good work 10 lb hammer Dimitrii 16:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant rewrite by TenPoundHammer ... a great effort and result in a short amount of time. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant amount of information has been added to the article and is referenced. The failure/downslide of Indian Mall caused a developmental war between 2 companies to construct a new mall servicing the Jonesboro Metropolitan Area. The deserting of the Indian Mall led to the construction of The Mall at Turtle Creek, the only mall to open in the year 2006. The Indian Mall was the only mall serving Northeast Arkansas and Southeast Missouri for nearly 40 years within a 70 mile radius. The next closest malls before the Indian Mall were in Memphis and Little Rock. (Lil Pun 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Looks a lot better now. References a plenty and there is actually some significance. (YorkiePoo)
- Comment. Thanks to YorkiePoo for adding the pictures, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchess Mall[edit]

Unsourced article about a very ordinary mall which has been bulldozed and which seems to fail WP:N. This stub appears to have little hope of expansion for want of sources. 31 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' or hotels listings. So far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Wikipedia is not a directory of defunct malls. Ohconfucius 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep (from delete) following rewrite. Kudos to excellent work by TenPoundHammer! Ohconfucius 04:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per these other mall articles appearing. Doesn't assert notability. Has no sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Reads like a directory entry. Too many guidelines/policies not being met to even consider keeping this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Check it out. I added a bunch of sources and notability is now established. It's no longer a stub, nor is it a directory page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Again I say, Google isn't always an accurate gauge of notability. I'm sure that if someone could find some in-print sources (newspaper archives, old photos at the library, etc.), then any possible notability could be asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 04:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the major overhaul I gave this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan Frise 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The unsourced article doesn't assert notability. Dimitrii 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It does now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Fishkill (town), New York. The mall does have history however it is not clear that it is notable enough to merit an article at this point. Given time to develop in the town article, it could come back. There were many articles written about the mall over the years so there are sources for anyone with the time to flesh out the history. It was unique in some ways like the first mall in the county with a greenhouse. Vegaswikian 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a metric buttload of sources online; ~~I'm going to rewrite and expand the article.~~ Significant rewrite made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm changing my opinion after the rewrite and added references. Note to closing admin. The votes before the rewrite may need to be given less weight since they are basically for an article that no longer exists. Vegaswikian 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent re-write. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent rewrite. I'd like to commend TenPoundHammer for actually taking the time to improve these articles instead of just saying they can be improved. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the writings of Bruno Maddox[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of every single byline of a magazine writer ever. Otto4711 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally know!?! OMG, Ronald Reagan has an article?! Are we now going to have articlez for every President of an institution ever!-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge with Bruno Maddox to list the publications he wrote for, but not each article because that's WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I copied and pasted the names of the publications from the list article to the name article to address this concern. Otto4711 05:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: Heck, I don't see a lot about Maddox himself that's notable, never mind this non-notable fork. Any sources that satisfy WP:V about Maddox himself? RGTraynor 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is Maddox? I've never heard of him. I don't want to know about what I don't know! heh heh (i just went for run so me laughs are shorter)-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't start listing every single magazine and newspaper article a journalist has written. Croxley 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is NOT a Directory, and thats exactly what this article is. Any significant writings by Maddox should be included in his article, the rest should be nuked. More important authors like Dickens and Hemingway, do not have lists of their writings. The page was created by someone who has a fetish for these pages (similar ones were created for William Monahan and Aaron Sorkin) Black Harry 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nukey nukey nukey!-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: user billdeancarter moved the page in an attempt to dodge the debate on this. I moved it back to its original name and replaced the AfD tag on it. Was this the right step to take? Also, why do these debates take so long when no one has voted to oppose the deletion? Black Harry 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close That dodging bastard!? Let's burn him! I don't know who Bruno Maddox is, but let's not find out. It looks like User:BillDeanCarter (aka me) is trying to hide this list on his user page now. How nutty is that? AfD rules!, me got me a bumper sticker.-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im not even sure if Bruno Maddox deserves an article, let along a stand alone bibliography 71.255.163.220 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're an anon but I want to say this. Bruno is from the prestigious Maddox family, all writers and all achievers. He has written much as a journalist, published an acclaimed and IMO brilliant novel called My Little Blue Dress, not to mention he was editor-in-chief of Spy magazine. Oh. Hmmm. I changed my mind, Caylie42 at MySpace has done so much more with that erupting volcano of hers. Nuke Bruno Maddox.-BillDeanCarter 04:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DIR. And in reply to Black Harry - yes, replacing the article and the AfD tag after it was vandalized by BillDeanCarter was the right thing to do. Anyone can place a copy of an article in their own userspace for reference, but they must not move it directly to their userspace. Judging by BillDeanCarter's trolling behaviour here, that page move was intended to be disruptive. Masaruemoto 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am the farthest thing from a troll. Look at my contributions. They have had intent, they have had depth. What have you contributed in terms of actual writing?-BillDeanCarter 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it seems Mr. Carter is doing his best to get this list deleted, and ought to be a bit more civil here, I fail to see a reason to delete this as a list. Spy Magazine was a noted, even celebrated, publication, and Maddox strikes me as perfectly notable. And if we're going to write about notable people, best to start with what they've done. Given the brevity of the Maddox article currently, I'd have nothing against merging this in, but as it grows splitting this out is fine, and if someone is working on the article, keeping it separate from the outset strikes me as reasonable. The only policy I see cited above is that Wikipedia is not a directory, but I fail to see how this qualifies as a directory (index, perhaps, summary, certainly, but now, that's what an encyclopedia has, isn't it?) 38.112.153.190 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary fork of a very unnotable writer whose own article is hardly cluttered with content. Eusebeus 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. WjBscribe 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip awards[edit]

Unnecessary fork from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip awards" are not so notable or significant in themselves that they also deserve their own article, certainly not for a show with only 16 episodes and quite probably not any more. Include highlights of the factual material back into Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and delete this title, I say. Calton | Talk 04:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the show article. Presumably this was forked because of the size of the main article, which generally speaking is legitimate. However, given that the show has been cancelled and the main article is unlikely to gain any great volume of material beyond what's already there, this information can be merged back without any real difficulty. If there are concerns about the length of the main article then I would suggest editors look to the sections on references to other Sorkin works and the like, which are pretty trivial. Otto4711 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. Why was it forked off? The show has only won 1 award, nominations are usually not mentioned in articles (which is what almost every entry is on this page: nominations for awards, only 1 actual win). TJ Spyke 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content back in to the parent article, otherwise just give it the axe. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. First the show isn't yet cancelled, if it keep for one more season, this page would be useful to catalog the possible future nominations and awards. Joao Micuansky 13:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. Another cruft-laden unwarranted fork of Sorkinmania, I see. RGTraynor 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per the title is misleading, seeing as 'awards' is plural. the_undertow ^talk 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Don't really see why it was split off the main article. --Nehrams2020 07:49, 29 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 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dos noun[edit]

While I am convinced that this person exists, I have serious doubts about whether he is notable enough per WP:MUSIC to merit an article. Google barely knows who he is; his allmusic profile is empty; he has one album on an indie label, Manifest Music, whose notability is questioned since most of the acts are either his band or thier respective solo projects. The article itself is a collection of unsourceable information about his "European tours" which are admittedly "do-it-yourself" (i.e., not tours planned in the sense of multiple venues over a period of time, but "Yes please book me. This ain't a game ... Someone needs to give me some loot so we can do this. BOOK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", and none of it verifiable from independent sources of course; his freestyling background; his collaboration with other redlinked artists (including the deleted Verbal Tec); and the usual Myspaciousness. Delete barring any sort of indication that he meets WP:MUSIC. One WP:RS may be possible, but multiple non-trivial ones are not found. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by a single-purpose account, and contains a myspace link. Nominator's suspicions are confirmed. YechielMan 02:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see him passing WP:MUSIC or any other notability test. 18:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Roses[edit]

notability, reads like an advert, and those unfamiliar have to guess what the article is talking about Chris 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it's totally fine! Delete. YechielMan 07:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Eastmain 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Eastmain 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Tamil-language film, and the article is a stub which needs to be expanded. I don't see the film listed under the name "Three Roses" in imdb.com However, the actors seem to be notable, both because several have articles in Wikipedia and have impressive credits at imdb.com. See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0481798/ ad for http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0708095/ for example. This suggests that the film is probably notable. Perhaps someone who knows more about Indian film than I do could expand the article. --Eastmain 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could do with some cleanup. Lousy movie, though. Tintin 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've tagged with Template:advert for now- it is a notable film and just needs a good cleanup and references. Thunderwing 13:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homestead-Wakefield Elementary School[edit]

no assertion of notability Chris 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:NN. The article's two years old and no signs that it will ever be improved beyond uninformative stubhood. RGTraynor 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see evidence of notability.--Wizardman 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete From what Ive seen on these AfD's elementary schools almost never get kept, and this one is non-notable as well. --TREYWiki 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The poorly sourced article doesn't assert notability. Dimitrii 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki. Tag as {{db-transwiki}} once done. Sandstein 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense song[edit]

I suggest to transwiki this to Wikisource for obvious reasons. I don't know if there's a specific tag for suggesting that, so I'm bringing it here. YechielMan 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Modern Times is a landmark in the history of film. The subject is notable. - Richard Cavell 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom, assuming copyright is fully in the clear. To be an article this should be more than the lyrics and should clarify the importance outside the continaing work per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 09:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom and Dhartung. Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Feeeshboy 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and merge the rest into Modern Times (film)#Music. --h2g2bob 18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if possible and then delete. Eluchil404 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Sandstein 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sobek (comics)[edit]

Article on a minor supporting character from DC Comics' Shazam! franchise introduced and later killed off in its weekly comic series 52. If we don't have articles on Uncle Marvel and Tawky Tawny (both links are redirects), we don't need one on Sobek. FuriousFreddy 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I would argue more for creating articles for those characters than for deleting this one. --DrBat 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? One-paragraph summaries in Marvel Family suit them fine. I tried to write an Uncle Marvel article at one time, and I found it highly unnecessary and merged it.I find an article on Sobek even more unnecessary. --FuriousFreddy 02:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could become a well-written article if someone set their mind on it and truly turned it from a stub into an article. But if Sobek truly is simply a very minor character in the end, then perhaps my lack of knowledge on comics shines through. Jmlk17 03:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the current status quo of Sobek there's not really any room for the article to grow beyond a stub. If the character was still around I would have suggested creating a page for the Four Horsemen of Apokolips and merging into that--Rider kabuto 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Not just am I an inclusionist, but also even given Sobek's brief life and violent death, there's plenty to write about. This article just needs expanding (and I'm with DrBat for giving Uncle and Tawky their own articles, too). Thanos6 15:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that Sobek, the Egyptian crocodile god, was important enough to be included in the Lost World of Reptiles exhibit at the Australian Reptile Park.[12] -- Jreferee 21:26, 26 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, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though his life was brief. i would rather see more articles then less and anybody who reads comics knows that pretty much nobody ever stays dead. JayDub 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like the nominator's argument is the reverse of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am not familiar with the precedents of which comic book characters to keep and which to not keep... but i would prefer to keep this one for now. -- Ben 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sobek's entire and overall not-notable existence can be easily summarized by 52 (comic book). ' 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't hold back now... tell us how you really feel. :) -- Ben 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grandmasterka as copyvio. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph miscellaneous facts[edit]

The suggestion to merge this article with Guelph is well placed, but I'm not sure how much there is to merge. A lot of the trivia are indiscriminate and unsourced. YechielMan 07:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the odd bit of verifable, notable information and then delete the article. Using the word "miscellaneous" automatically breaches WP:NOT in my book. Madmedea 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here worth merging, since it's just a pile of trivial, unsourced facts. The claim that the hat-trick originated in Guelph is outright fallacious, even. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It appears 3/4 of the article is a copyvio of http://www.guelph.ca/living.cfm?itemid=70031&smocid=1618 as it is copied in verbatim. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry W. Gaiters[edit]

Unverifiable and non-notable.

The following copied from the already ongoing discussion about deletion from Talk:Larry W. Gaiters:

Research Inconclusive - Mark for Immediate Deletion[edit]

Marking this page for immediate deletion. While checking sources for Oneness Pentecostalism I did a search for any Larry Gaiters. He claims to have been to the Oxford Round Table, which is an education focused forum. While he may have attended, he was not a speaker or presenter listed on their speaker page: [13]

A news lookup at Google [14] produces some scant reports. There's a Zanesville connection, probably to Larry Gaiters Sr. (father?) who reported being assaulted by two women (1960's). The only Rev. Larry Gaiters of a "Southfield" near a Detroit newspaper was excited about a science fair.

There's no news of this person. The main links to him are this page and the website of his ministry. None of the claims have anything resembling credible sources. The only other thing I can find is this:

[15] Dr. Larry W. Gaiters Presiding Bishop and Prelate

End Time Age Deliverance Ministries Worldwide, Inc Toronto, Ontario

Member American Academy of Hair Design ... American Academy of Hair Design 901 SW 37Th Topeka, KS 66611 USA

Website: www.aahairdesign.com Phone: (785) 267-5800 Fax: (785) 267-2109

Their website doesn't have anything on him, so even this profile is probably bogus. Not sure if Dr. Gaiters knows of this Wikipedia page. And even if so, it's still blatant advertisement. Someone with "12,700 churches in 150 countries around the world, including overseeing 307 bishops that cover all 192 nations," would be in the news, would have articles written from him, about him, or books. The only thing I found on Amazon was his profile:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1E8LC9K5NTX40?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview Reviews Written by Dr. Larry Gaiters. RSS Feed (Southfield, MI - USA.)

It contains one review...

This looks REALLY shady to me. The only "real" Dr. Larry Gaiters I can find anything on, that is actually in a newspaper article, lives in Southfield, MI. The church claimed here is in Toronto. His church, "End Time Age Deliverance Ministries Worldwide" has zero stories about it.

No offense intended if this person is real, or if the facts are real, or just slightly distorted by a "fan", but I can't even confirm this guy's birthday, but I can find a man who's like his father filing police reports and as the surviver of a dead relative in their local newspaper, but no birth record or mention... local newspapers will almost always report on a "successful local son" who leads a worldwide church, and the last story from this newspaper with the name Gaiters has a Nixon-era headline.

Marking this for immediate deletion. Removing this reference entirely from Oneness Pentecostalism, and copy/pasting this report to the Oneness Pentecostalism talk page. --DeWayne Lehman 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies--I did not see this first--I started removing spam and then realized I could not find any documentation either, and the claim for number of bishops supervised seems highly unlikely. Retagged for deletion. DGG 22:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Editors - AFD Vandalism[edit]

User_talk:64.128.164.172 has been deleting the AFD tag from this article in violation of Wikipedia policy. A warning was issued, the user recommitted the vandalism, and a final warning has now been given. If you see the activity continue, please revert the article and feel free to report this user here to be blocked by administrators. I would like to point out that this is the same user that removed the speedy deletion tag this article originally had (but offered no explanation nor improved the article). Though that was an acceptable action under Wikipedia policy, removing an AFD tag is not. Thank you. -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote For Deletion[edit]

Strong Delete - This person is not notable, the facts appear arbitrarily fabricated, and those who removed the previous delete tag offer no verifiable sources or reliable facts (but are in fact simultaneously "advertising" on other pages (see the Oneness Pentecostalism history page, and compare with history page on Gaiters) with unsubstantiated facts and name dropping of this Gaiters person. Even if verified to be a real person, this page has no redeeming encyclopedic value. Vanity page at best, fictional at worst. -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A vanity page, not much improved since its initial creation. Notability and sources are lacking. YechielMan 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The poorly sourced article appears to be a vanity page. Dimitrii 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Multiple non-trivial reliable sources were not presented for verification and notability guidelines. --Wafulz 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gothador[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}}.

Online RPG, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of its website has been fluctuating, but since February it's over 100.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability, unsourced. Fails WP:ATT. DarkSaber2k 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A google search reveals 10 hits, only 2 of which are in context, 0 of which are reliable sources. Marasmusine 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and SALT re: WP:SNOW Matt Brennen 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outwar clones are a dime a dozen (Urban Dead, Earth: 2025, Nation States, Starships!, Kingdom of Loathing, etc). No notability per WP:WEB, no article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails notability. Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to note that many of the previous posts are from former players of the game. This is a bit biased in my opinion. The article defines what the game is about and will be of interest to those who like to play MMRPG's in the future. The players might want to be more active in updating the article though. I did a google search myself and found many entries that were related to the game including the Wikki article. I would vote to definitely keep this article Midnightmedic 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And how exactly can you tell they are former players just from their posts in this AfD? Maybe you could tell us how your search yields 'many' entries as sources, when another editors yielded only 10. Do you have any argument that isn't based in WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It doesn't do any harm, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It's useful, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It's interesting and attempting to unveil a 'conspiracy' of former players? You've failed to address the notability issue also. Whilst it is by no means the be-all and end-all of notability, this sites Alexa Ranking seems to be especially poor. DarkSaber2k 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected, I have no proof, but I do recognize at least one of the names. I am not saying that there is a 'conspiracy.' So far there seems to be little to no actual discussion, just delete or speedy delete with little to no reason attached. I'm not sure what 'proof' you are looking for, I did a google search and it returned at least 10 pages of content. Others have failed to show any proof at all or even leave a remark. I am also curious as to why you are so vehement against this entry.Midnightmedic 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - You stand corrected again: A google search reveals 10 hits, only 2 of which are in context, 0 of which are reliable sources. Marasmusine 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Failed to show proof or remark on the sources you say? Have you even read any of the comments here? I'm not vehement against the entry, just people who make keep arguments that are absolutely not based on any wikipedia policies bar how not to argue for a keep, and people who can only make arguments based round 'conspiracy theories.' Policies cited as a reason for deletion: WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:ATT. Wikipedia policies cited as a reason for keeping the article: None. Additionally, 'I recognize one of the names' is an extremely weak reason to claim many of the previous posts are from former players of the game. It's a big wide web out there, and many time I've found someone else using 'my' name, and I'm positive I'm not the only one. DarkSaber2k 11:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for pointing out my faults DarkSaber2k. I will do what I can to research the links you posted and add to that. I would also like to know how you only got 10 hits on a google search. I simply typed in 'Gothador' and returned, as I said, at least 10 pages. Happy surfing todayMidnightmedic 11:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - I didn't do the search, Masamune did, so ask him. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. So it's up to you to provide links to these 'at least 10 pages' (so I'm expecting more than 10 if there are 'at least' that many) that satisfy the reliable source criteria. DarkSaber2k 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My bad, I mis-spelt the name during the search (typing 'gothandor' by mistake) Article still fails WP:ATT though, so my opinion still stands. Marasmusine 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if you had spelt the name right, you'd have found 94 websites of download directory listings and fansites. Not a single review or news mention. DarkSaber2k 10:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is relevent, http://www.tucows.com/preview/363018 , google search returns approximately 10,300 hits, 16 relevant unique hits on the first 2 pages, http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-200701122007TheYearoftheOnlineGame.htm shows as #7 with average time logged (As of 12JAN07)SeanKelly1986 12:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So your saying this must be considered notable because a lot of time is spent on the site? DarkSaber2k 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely pointing out where in the article it was. More sources: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.gothador.com, http://www.gamewyrd.com/others/cyber884, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gothador, http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=2688, www.answers.com/topic/gothador . What do YOU define as a "Reliable source"?SeanKelly1986 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't define reliable sources, wikipedia does. The top link wont work on my PC, the same goes for the second, I'll have to check them later. Urban Dictionary nearly made me wet myself laughing. You genuinely believe that is a reliable source? A web site where anyone can submit any word they've made up and have a 99.9% chance of having it accepted? As for MPOGD, a listing on a database that aims to list every online game in existence is hardly a notable claim to fame. It's like to trying to argue that you should have an article because your names in the phone book. As for Answers.com, I think you'll find if you look closely you will see THEIR article is actually credited to Wikipedia, as is nearly all their information. DarkSaber2k 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see you back up your argument against Urban Dictionary with some sort of source. I don't see anything about the MPOGD site trying to "List every online game in existence" as well. In response to your comment about Answers.com ... that pretty much says the article IS being used and referencedSeanKelly1986 — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(resetting indent) MPOGD is called the Multiplayer Online Game Directory (or possibly Database, can't remember without checking, but it doesn't affect the point). It lists online games, anyone can submit links to new games, which are then duly listed. I know because I submitted a couple myself. As for providing sources to prove the unreliability of a source, don't be absurd. You have to prove Urban Dictionary is reliable, not me prove it unreliable. And like I said with MPOGD, I've submitted things to Urban Dictionary myself. Anyone can sign up to be an editor and approve or disapprove of the new entries. I could join up, approve my own definition of myself and attempt to add a wikipedia article claiming 'but I'm listed on Urban Dictionary'. DarkSaber2k 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[16] I rest my case about Urban Dictionary not being a reliable source. And those other links check out as download descritptions, which are trivial mentions, not media coverage. Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.DarkSaber2k 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why - 1/ Ive read the summary of the game and whilst it is slightly out of date (but as the game is alwyas expanding it could be out of date withing hours of typeing) is quite acurate and factual. It makes no appearance as an advertisement - simply an article on a game -- 2/ There is one point made earlier that QUOTE >>>>>>>>>>>> Delete. Outwar clones are a dime a dozen (Urban Dead, Earth: 2025, Nation States, Starships!, Kingdom of Loathing, etc). No notability per WP:WEB, no article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) <<<<<<<<< there are many outwar clones. Having read part of the list of MMORPGs and part of the DELETION list I see that apparently other games are not being deleted. That to me indicates this whole session as having been started as a hatewar against the game and more accurately either its creators or a personal issue with another player. It would seem to me that if Gothador were to be dleted - one must delet ALL games that have any simillarities to each oher keeping (after much research) only those with the most orriginality and only within a generic group teh apparently oldest FrankNStien 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) FrankNStien — FrankNStien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As a matter of fact, I've tagged over 30 Browser-based MMOs for speedy deletion in the last couple of weeks whilst patrolling lists for accumulated junk articles, all but 2 of which were deleted for actually being non-notable. So once again ~~Midnightmedic~~ FrankNStien, there is no conspiracy outside of your own head. Now do you have an argument for keeping that isn't based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT, or is that all you have like ~~you~~ the other two 'keep' sayers stated earlier? DarkSaber2k 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KINDLY don't lump people who are posting things without any sort of sources, and those who ARE posting relevant sources in the same group.SeanKelly1986 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you finally post a reliable source, I'll consider changing how I think of you. DarkSaber2k 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is a topic that seems to be slowly spiralling into a heated debate, and the best way to battle in this is with logic and facts. I will make it a point to keep my facts succinct and to the point to avoid any undue distress to any of the parties involved with this discussion.
Fact: Hunted Cow Studios[17]created a game that has spanned the globe in a matter of months, and has managed to sustain that game for years. This MMORPG game that we are currently discussing has an amazing 103978 registered users for their forum which is conjoined with their game, Gothador. That can be shown here [18]
Fact: Even with that many registered users, Hunted Cow Studios manages at least one game upgrade per week along with weekly updates and their recently implemented 24 hour live support feature.
Fact: Gothador has over 10,00 listings on Google alone [19] including listings on Big Online Games, [20] Tucows.com, [21] and File Planet. [22] These are sites that are regularly visited by hundreds of thousands of gamers everyday.
Any argument can be made as to why Gothador should or should not remain in Wikipedia, but the final decision is not going to be made due to who can try and defame another person. The only way that a fair and impartial decision can be made is by playing the game. The comradery that the game brings, the amazing ability for a small company from Elgin, Scotland to create a game that spans the globe, can only be experienced and decided upon as an individual. Gothador will not be diminished if we are no longer listed in Wikipedia, though the reverse should be assessed. If over one hundred thousand people play this online game with immense satisfaction and a website arbitrarily decides to delete our game from it's listing, then perhaps the people that enjoy the game could merely forget to surf to Wikipedia. Word of mouth, or in this case, pixel, is more powerful than any advertisement. Gothador will still be there, and we'll have more time to commit to our online hobby. --NytDunne 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)NytDunne - Gothador Supporter Nyt — NytDunne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how many people have played it for how long, How many link directories it's been listed in or where it ranks on a google search (for websites, people generally hold an Alexa rank in higher regard than a google search). It also doesn't matter how much high regard you have for the developers. For all these 10,000 individual pages that have been mentioned, it should be quite easy to provide Multiple, independent non-trivial third party media mentions that are reliable (Criteria 1 of WP:WEB), yet this is not the case. The article makes no mention of winning an award (Criteria 2) and makes no mention of being distributed through a notable method (Criteria 3). The article has no Secondary sources, required to establish notability. DarkSaber2k 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, until you'd mentioned it, I'd never heard of an Alexa rank, and I've been an avid internet user since 1996. Google is far more popular to the average person, topped only by MSN and Yahoo... and even Alexa shows that on it's sites. So for the average person, IE, the majority of people that create website traffic, they are going to get to their sites via MSN, Yahoo or Google. --NytDunne 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Alexa measures site traffic, Google is a search engine. There as different as cars and yachts. Of course more people go to google than Alexa. Like you said most people don't even know about Alexa until they are told their 'notable' website doesn't rank very highly on it in an AfD on wikipedia. If you were looking up what time a TV show starts, would you go look up the ratings for the show, or use a TV guide? DarkSaber2k 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a virtually unknown website that measures the entire internet's traffic is somewhat like trying to use a telescope to count every star in the sky. It's not going to be as accurate as some people would like to believe, as every website is going to be biased. If you were truly trying to be unbiased and go with entirely factual evidence, you'd visit the site and take the two-week trial so that you can have an opinion that is based on actual usage and not numbers. If Wikipedia wants to base it's listings on random ratings and visits, then you should probably start deleting articles, starting at the very first one... --NytDunne 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another one Darksabre? Tsk tsk. You have somthing against these game don't you... I will be taking the whole thing to arbitration the minute I figure out how. I don't think the destruction of 40 odd articles in the same category is on. Not without a proper debate on the nature of the category... I also note that most of these were 'speedy deletes', unfortunately you and a few rogue admins seem to think notability is valid for a speedy delete, apparently it is not, i read the policy and it appears speedy deletes should only be for copyright issues. People like you will kill WP DarkSabre. I still note you have about ZERO actual proper edits to WP, you contribute NOTHING outside of 'Doom metal' which is about as notable as my arse, but delete anything that gets in your way using an incorrect method. WPs inherent beurocracy is the only reason you get away with it, because most of us don't have the time to fight all this rubbish. Back to the point, SeanKelly1986's links prove notability. Oh yes they do. Bjrobinson 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got you facts wrong again Bj? Tsk tsk. Check who nominated the article. Guess what? Not me. As for just editing Doom Metal, your very bad at making people look bad you know. Even cursory examination of my contributions shows I'm active in numerous articles from Manhunt 2 to Command & Conquer: Generals, via Metalocalypse. I look forward to arbitration, then we can tell them who suggested I look at all these articles in the first place. But if we can move away from your personal grudge against me and actually discuss THIS article, that'd be great. Of the 5 sources provided, the top 2 I can't check on this PC, they wont load for some reason, I'll have to look over them later. But the last 3 sources would be laughed out of ANY article they were included in.DarkSaber2k 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah.... wow! Bjrobinson 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for Speedy Delete being only for copyright issues, which page did you read? Because it sure as heck wasn't WP:SPEEDY. Failure to assert notability is not a speedy criteria? Then why o why does practicly EVERY speedy tag say 'Blah blah fails to assert to notability of this topic? For a laugh? Failure to assert notability is practically the ONLY criteria for a speedy deletion, along with advertising, nonsense pages and attack pages. It's so specific I'm amazed anyone could mis-interpret to be solely about copyright violation. DarkSaber2k 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well you have recieved more posts I see and some good articles. There has been nothing but negative and harsh feedback to those replies, not just mine. Wikipedia will of course, do what it wants with this article and that is fine because that is their choice. Other concerns have however been voiced.

I am beginning to understand why more and more college professors will no longer accept Wikipedia in their thesis papers due to the process that is being used to edit the articles. You can delete my account after this for I will not attempt to help anymore. I have tried on other articles and found pretty much the same attitudes. Thank you and have a nice day. Midnightmedic 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPDarkSabre, since you yourself claimed that one should join and use the Alexa website before passing judgement on it, shouldn't you, by those standards that you set, do the same with Gothador before passing judgement regarding its validity? This is not a stab at you or the deletion post, merely an attempt to let you have a bit more insight as to why people might be fighting to keep the article on WP. In fact, I would be willing to pay for you to have a trial membership for those two weeks. (Pardon my ignorance regarding how to use this site. I'm trying, but internet impaired)~~Persephone — 67.174.47.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I just finished the following search on google. Gothador -wikipedia -forum -message -board Each - removes those results, removing wikipedia and all message board (which are top of the unreliable sources list)). The actual results (if you follow it a page at a time): 94 websites are found. None of them are reviews, none of them are mentions in reports or news. The only sources you have been able to provide yourselves are downlink link pages that feature, at most, a paragraph describing the game. Far short of multiple non-trivial independent third-party mentions. I really don't see what more this is to say about this. DarkSaber2k 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fight tooth and nail for these games. I fought to keep Iselkampf, Tribalwars, and am fighting for Starships! right now. All of which have sourcing ten times better than this article, and two are gone anyway. If there is any kind of merit at all, it get's my vote to keep. This article is just an unsourced advertisement, and a recreation of deleted material. It should have been speedy deleted long ago. Matt Brennen 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Comment I just realized that almost everyone voting to keep is a single purpose account! WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME? Matt Brennen 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[23] Well here's the problem! DarkSaber2k 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- LOL, I was wondering where all these single purpose accounts were coming from! Matt Brennen 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking in reliable/secondary sources. Urban Dictionary, FilePlanet, etc... are not reliable/independent sources of information. Wickethewok 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - The game was reviewed and given 5 stars by Tucows (http://tucows.com/preview/363018) and the game creator was featured in the local newspaper (http://72.29.72.185/article.jpg) - Radneto 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Radneto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - As respectfully as I am able: Please read the notability rules. Anybody can put five stars on anything at tucows, and as for the game creator, if you think a minor plug in a local paper makes him noteworthy, then please feel free to create an article about the guy. Please sign your comments. Matt Brennen 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well according to the rules here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB - It seems the above articles are proof enough to justify the keeping of the article. There are also fan sites - http://www.guildofwisdom.co.uk and of course http://www.huntedcow.com which also fall into the subsections of the afore mentioned article and also prove notability. - Radneto 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Radneto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - I think WP:COI would be another thing this guy should (and therefore probably wont) read. Tucows, as a download site, is only a trivial mention on a download page. (Per the same WP:WEB Radneto is claming he read.) The 5 star rating is not an indicator of notability, as you could have requested fans of the game repeatedly vote it 5 star to improve it's standing. On the flip side, someone could just as easily vote it 1 star repeatedly and lower it's rating. A website for the game developer is hardly (here we go again) the multiple non-trivial independent third party media mentions required. And the same goes for the fan site. Hardly independent is it. DarkSaber2k 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP - Matt Brennen your a tool, and I know where your at bish! — 203.14.53.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I find it upsetting to see some of the comments levelled at DarkSaber2k above. Can users like Bjrobinson please review WP:CIVIL? There's nothing personal in this afd nomination, and I would've tagged it myself had I seen it first. Marasmusine 10:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to cite DarkSaber2k on the WP:CIVIL as well. Being rude to people who feel that this page is notable is quite counterproductive.SeanKelly1986 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If pointing out to people why their notability is non-existent in the most thorough way imaginable is rudeness, then yes, I was rude in this AfD. DarkSaber2k 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Yes - Ive posted from a single use account - I dont deny it - Untill this was brought to my attention I didnt even realise there was a registration and "argument" section in Wikipedia. Theres mention above of the game being mentioned ina local newspaper - agreed - it was. it WAS ALSO quite recently (1-2 months ago) discussed in an article in a NATIONAL DUTCH newpaper as it has a large following in Holland

You got a name for the newspaper and a link to article, or have we gotta guess? Oh and, you should have a look at this. DarkSaber2k 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt ... lacks WP:A to establish WP:N, and apparently it is a recreation of a previously deleted article ... also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoofmaster, which seems to be related. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 web content, and block the socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB, as pointed out above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for reminding me to request the article be SALTED, this article has been recreated at least once already. Matt Brennen 20:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIJAYA KUMAR.N[edit]

This article appears to be a "vanity" page. The subject is not notable and the content is not supported by external references. WWGB 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be no more than a librarian who has nothing about him that is out of the ordinary for a librarian. Agreed that its seems to be vanity piece. Emeraude 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:VSCA, plus WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Definitely vanity. Delete. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person. JuJube 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Gillyweed 11:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan L. Graham[edit]

Page fails to assert her notability. Also, the only source is her own website. She seems to be a regular college professor who has articles published in trade magazines Black Harry 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost always, the holder of an endowed chair at a research-based university in Canada or the United States is notable. --Eastmain 08:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Eastmain said. Janm67 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "...has published in trade magazines"? Trade magazines like Communications of the ACM or ACM SIGPLAN '79 Symposium on Compiler Construction or IEEE Computer?[24] Also, as a woman who got her PhD at Stanford in 1971, that alone probably makes her notable as an early woman in CS. —Ben FrantzDale 12:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery, clearly notable. JulesH 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Very well known among computer scientists. National Academy of Engineering member. ACM Fellow. Founding editor of TOPLAS. 2000 ACM SIGPLAN Career Programming Language Achievement Award. President of the Harvard Board of Overseers. (All from [25].) Co-chair of an NRC panel whose report made newspapers from San Francisco [26] to Taipei [27]. Heavily cited papers on fault isolation, compiler transformations, run-time profiling, high-performance Java implementation, compiler flow analysis, context-free parsing. Even further down on her cite list, this paper on what is now called Graham-Glanville code generation is a standard topic in compiler design, the subject of 14 papers with "Graham-Glanville" in their title. This is a major figure in computer science, standing out even among named chairs at important research universities. The article could be a lot more thorough, but that's not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is notable, but I suggest expansion of the article (not that I need to suggest that). Acalamari 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given above. Nobody should doubt the notability of a distinguished Professor at a major university like Berkeley. --Bduke 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as reply to nom's "Page fails to assert her notability", how is this not a notable position: Graham is the (named chair:) Pehong Chen (far beyond average:) Distinguished Professor at (far beyond average university:) University of California, Berkeley --Myke Cuthbert 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator appears to have made no attempt check notability using external sources. The word 'stub' at the foot of the page is a clue that the present article needs expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Luckett (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 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/withdrawn nomination (bad faith). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disemvoweling[edit]

Disemvowel is not defined in any published dictionary: [28]. I also checked the OED, M3, The Oxford Companion to the English Language and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1992) and couldn't find it. Google Book search gives 1 result. I tried to add a note to the entry about the word being rare and not a proper term for the phenomenon (cf. WP:NEO), but was reverted. This entry should either be renamed or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary and in the interest of accuracy. A name that a linguist would use to describe it would be vowel elision or vowel telescoping. We are hurting our credibility by telling readers that this is a proper name for the phenomenon. I dread to think of one of our readers using this term in a thesis. And let's not forget issues of notability, which is clearly lacking in this case.--Richard Maxwell 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling

Keep. AFD is not clean-up. If you want to do an article on Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping, click on one of those links. And I'm trying to figure out this "fear" that someone will use it in a thesis: anyone relying upon ANY encyclopedia, even Britannica, as support in a thesis is already going to get in trouble with his or her thesis advisor. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have to wonder why Richard Maxwell would expect to find any Internet-related terms in two 1992 print sources (The Oxford Companion to the English Language and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics). And what were the publication dates of the other authorities he used, I have to wonder? --Calton | Talk 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually checked a two-volume Encyclopedia of Linguistics from 2005: [29]. The OED CD-ROM is from 2002, and as you can see here, it's not in the unabridged Merriam-Webster. (The website says so if it is and offers a free trial.)
By the way, you mentioned above that the entry should be renamed instead of deleted, but that's not going to happen. All of my edits are being reverted. You just reverted my last edit now. How do you resolve that contradiction?--Richard Maxwell 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing at all -- zip, zero, nada, zil, null set -- about renaming anything. I said that if you want to do an article on Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping -- which "disemvoweling" isn't, no more than it's a dessert topping or floor wax, no matter you try to force the definitions to fit -- click on one of those links write about Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping where they belong instead of your original-research attempts to insert said material into Disemvoweling. All your edits are being reverted for the simple reason that they're NOT about disemvoweling. Clear? --Calton | Talk 13:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a better name, or redirect if an article on the subject already exists. I presume "disemvoweling" is meant to be humourous (I got half a chuckle out of it, never having heard it before); given the number of Google hits (11k+), this could clearly be a search term; the best outcome is that the user gets redirected to the proper name of the phenomenon. As for your dispute with the other editor of the page, AfD is not RFC. cab 08:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator fails to cite a valid reason for deletion. Because the article is not a dictionary entry, why does it matter that the article's title doesn't appear in a dictionary? The article is about a concept, which is known by a jargon name, not about the word itself. The article is also not about linguistics, so I fail to see why what a linguist would call the technique is even relevant. JulesH 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good point, kind of like claiming a particular bull is actually a cow then saying you must get rid of it because it won't give milk. --Calton | Talk 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, term is in the Jargon File, generally considered a reliable source on computer-related slang terms, and there are other citations. The article could be improved per WP:NEO, but that's cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nothing has changed since the last !vote, except the nominator and one other editor's attempt to describe it as if it were a term in linguistics, where it isn't used. The question as to whether the primary use is self-censorship with splats (G*d) or editorial censorship with deletions (dlt) is still open, but it appears notable and (before the quasi-linguistic additions) accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just stopped by my library and looked up the word in two gigantic slang dictionries just a few years old from Cassell and Partridge. It was nowhere to be found. If it isn't deleted, then perhaps it should be merged into "censorship," as the word appears not even to be a neologism.--Richard Maxwell 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is a common practice on blogs, see ten thousand google hits. The neologism rule is mainly about words and phrases with very little following, perhaps because they were invented by those writing the Wikipedia article. If all new words and phrases were banned as article titles, then we couldn't have any such article as Virginia Tech massacre. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you exclude Wikipedia mirrors from the search, like this, it returns 685 hits. We are not supposed to be the source of new terms, but rather to report on them.
Delete, per my above comment, only 635 Ghits after excluding Wikipedia mirrors. IPSOS (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm with Dhartung above, this is useful jargon. I happened on this entry because I was reading about the Kathy Sierra fiasco, and O'Reilly Report mentioned "disemvowelling" (two "l"s). That's pretty mainstream useage for a computer jargon term.3oranges 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This term and practice is just one more way to claim fame in the small blogworld of sci-fi fans. Is this ever done in print? Imagine a book without vowels. What this is about is controlling Internet commenters with a Puritanical punishment. It almost always leads to the inevitible banning of those so inflicted. It'an attack weapon by cultists and nothing more. Marky48 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why would you want to do it to an entire book? The use makes no sense in that context. It's a technique of self-censorship (generally used for one or two words only) or forum moderation. You might object on principle to forum moderation, but it is generally agreed to be a useful and necessary process that enables focussed, productive internet-based discussions to take place without them descending into unproductive trolling, flaming and backstabbing. While the technique did originate with SF fans, it has now spread beyond that culture and is in wide use (for example) in academic blogs that discuss the issue of intelligent design. JulesH 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blogger neologism with no reliable sources to indicate notability or widespread usage. No, the 'Jargon file' doesn't count.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Jargon File (also published under the name The New Hacker's Dictionary, ISBN 0262680920) is generally regarded as a reliable source on computer-related jargon. Why would you discount it? Also, why do you discount the other sources that are linked in the article? Double-tongued Word Wrester Dictionary, for instance, is published by Grant Barrett, a professional etymology researcher, so counts as a reliable source per the definition at WP:V. The term has been discussed in professionally published magazines (see the link to the SFX column in the article), also. Why are these not reliable sources? JulesH 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jargon File is regarded as a reliable source? A quick look at their antiquated website shows that the criteria for entry is to e-mail the sitemasters with an entry that can be shown to be in 'live use'. A bit of spam, and you're all set to promote your neologism. The fact that they managed to publish a book eleven years ago doesn't really convince me. Is disemvoweling in it?

The disemvoweling entry at Double-tongued Word Wrestler specifically says that 'This catchword has yet to be researched', so it doesn't count as a reliable source. The SFX source is pretty light as well, just the barest of mentions in a light-hearted column about something else.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I find it amusing that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NEO uses a word that has a Wikipedia entry, and then says it should be avoided. I'm just saying, it's a circular argument. I have come across this word in many different places on the internet, but I can't say there's been a reliable source compiled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newsong (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep has enough sources at a cursorry check and Primetime should absolutely not be allowed to dictate article content. Eluchil404 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The nominator, Richard Maxwell (talk · contribs · block log), is a sockpuppet of user Primetime (talk · contribs · block log), as proven by an RFCU. He is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. This is a bad-faith nomination and his comments should be disregarded. -Will Beback · † · 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDphoto.org[edit]

I don't see why the website is notable. It's someone's collection of 3000-odd photos, and that's it. There are many good photos (in my opinion), and they're public domain, but these facts by themselves don't warrant an encyclopaedia article. (They do make a great resource for Wikipedia, but that's not relevant here.) Its Alexa traffic rank as at 27 April 2007 was 51,331 - see here. A bit iffy 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Noble idea, but insufficiently notable to even approach passing WP:WEB. Caknuck 09:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I've used this guy's pictures in some of my own work, I agree with Caknuck. I see no discussion of the site by independent third parties. JulesH 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. Acalamari 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the photos are by Jon Sullivan who might possibly be notable. DGG 02:24, 29 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. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maiko Kawakami[edit]

Contested speedy delete. See Talk:Maiko Kawakami. Anthony Appleyard 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her only claim to fame (as the article even says) is that a British tabloid reported that she was stupid enough to think that a sheep was a poodle. How does that make her notable? I am not an expert on Japanese movies, so I can't really tell if any of her roles have been more than minor (since it appears most of the movies she appeared in have not been released outside of Japan). However, this article does nothing to make her sound notable. TJ Spyke 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recent news coverage can only be trivial when considering the merits of the subject. We need some indication of notability beyond gullibility. Caknuck 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She has some merits. I also added an IMDB link to the article. Stammer 13:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC) I've added some references. She is a professional actress, apparently well-known in Japan, and she has starred in movies, such as Violent Cop, that have been shown in the West too. I think she may deserve a Keep. Stammer 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't even seem to be true anyway, per this ChrisTheDude 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the only reason for the article is the sheep hoax. If someone with more time and knowledge about her career could post that, however... DarkAudit 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Judging from the Snopes article, the poodle lamb thing is a hoax, which further lessens her notability and should be removed from the article. That would leave a two sentence stub with one source. Based on the info in her IMDb entry, I think this is her jp: article. If it could be translated and the article fleshed out with notability established, then I'd change my !vote. Caknuck 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's definitely her. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless we get any notable information that has nothing to do with sheep. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I'm not yet convinced that she's notable (appearing in some number of films without knowing much about those films doesn't say much; plenty of non-notable people have done the same), but at least we have something more than the sheep story. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stammer. If she is semi-prominent in Japan, that's 125 million people that could look for her at Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unenthusiastic keep. She's appeared on TV. She's appeared in movies. In Japan, these tend to require nothing much more than stereotypical looks and voice and the ability to ham with a straight face, but there are plenty of worthy exceptions and for all I know she is one of them; anyway, her merits and intrinsic notability have little to do with her actual notability. Ja:WP has an article on her. But if the article is kept, remove the crapola deriving from the Sun, a no-brow Murdoch tabloid that will print anything it thinks will boost its (horrifyingly high) circulation. -- Hoary 10:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 25 mainstream movies, more than ten TV series listed at Ja: wiki, and the IMDB link shows that she ha major parts in at least some of them. Neier 12:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I just added some material, translated (partially) from the Japanese Wikipedia. Maiko appears to be notable enough.--Endroit 10:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy Health Education Centre[edit]

Non notable small college without any verifiable claims to notability. The 34 Google hits[30] (and none from Google News [31] or Google Scholar[32]) show that it exists, and that it is recognized to train massagists, but that's it. Rather spammy as well, but I rather have it thoroughly AfD'ed than speedy deleted as spam and probably recreated anyway. Fram 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the ghits are from anything other than directory lists. DGG 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has failed to provide any sources to proof its claims, hence I suspect it to be self-promotion. Also, external references to the organization is almost non-existent.--Kylohk 20:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dražeta[edit]

Plain and simple: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory of (point 2) genealogical entries. Duja► 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is proposal for deletion is ridiculous. There are many articles about surnames on Wikipedia like Smith (surname) (In USA, United Kingdom...), Jovanović (In Serbia, Montenegro, etc...), not to mention many other listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Surnames Furthermore, the point 2 from the link that you showed speak about biography articles. Please tell me why Dražeta article should be deleted and articles about other surnames should not? Vampire in the city 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. If you take a closer look, 99.9% of those articles are disambiguation pages for already existing articles about people, with perhaps a couple of sentences on the top about the origin for the most frequent surnames. Smith (surname), carried by some 50,000,000 people, is certainly a worthy exception, but there are no notable persons of surname Dražeta. Do we really want some 10⁸ articles on each and every surname on the planet? Duja► 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt that you calculated ALL those articles to have 99.9% - some of them are disambiguation pages (because nobody expanded them yet), but some other are not, so why you did not proposed all of them for deletion but only this one? Vampire in the city 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Punkmorten 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So? You will delete the whole "surnames" category then or you have any criteria that decide which of those should be deleted and which should not? Please tell me which criteria that is? Vampire in the city 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this as a directory. A directory is a telephone book type entry or a yellow pages list of red links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep family lineages are a major research point in ethnology and we should have articles about them. Rather than deleting this article, articles about other last names should be expanded to have history of the lineage and not just a list of individuals with the same last name (of course, sometimes one lineage is split into multiple last names, and sometimes one last name belongs to several lineages - that is not the point here). In addition, there are Darko Dražeta, mayor of Ston[33] and Lazar Dražeta, a biologist[34] who perhaps might be notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, same article on Serbian Wikipedia is much more detailed, talks about family migration, various mentions of the name in history and so on. Nikola 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I planed to translate fully this article from Serbian Wikipedia, but I do not have much time for this at the momment. Vampire in the city 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough and quite interesting.--Methodius 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are making an encyclopedia, not a genealogy database. Punkmorten 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No? Then why there is "surnames" category in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Surnames Vampire in the city 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion City[edit]

Incomplete, unreleased non-commercial/amateur video game with little evidence of notability or verifiability beyond its own website and chatter on various forums related to Grand Theft Auto and the like. Also nominating:

Pliston

As another non-notable Gamemaker project by the same author, and prequel to the above game. Suspect both of these articles are self promotional, and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of substantial, reliable third-party sources on either of them. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument

Pliston can be found all over the internet. Not just on various forums. It has found its way onto games websites (most of them in Europe) and game galleries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowcloud (talk • contribs)

Comment. Popularity or widespread availability is not the issue here - it's quite normal for a piece of software to appear for download on lots of websites. The problem is the lack of reliable third-party sources reviewing the game, detailing its production, etc. A Google search for Pliston game[35] returns 71 unique results, almost all of them forum posts (not considered reliable sources), and the relevent results peter out after the third page or so of the results. "Pavilion City" game[36] returns even fewer relevant results - five on the first page (four forum posts and the Wikipedia article) and nothing on later pages. Considering the number and scope of gaming websites on the internet, that's a sign of relatively low notability for any game (compare with, say Cave Story, another free independent game, which has tens of thousands of Google hits, numerous reviews and interviews on websites not connected with its creator, etc). If you can provide some reliable sources documenting these games (not just sites offering it for download or brief reviews), then you have a case for keeping the articles. As these articles stand, the lack of verifiability is the biggest problem, as well as possible conflict of interest issues. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any evidence that it meets notability requirements and the author hasn't provided any. Mark Grant 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. The article does not provide sources from an outside perspective, and the article did not mention any previews from dominant gaming magazines and the like. Hence it is not notable.--Kylohk 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria fuentes[edit]

can't find any info on this author anywhere, possible hoax Calliopejen1 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, and if this is really a "cult figure", it should be easy to locate some sources, but I cannot. Fails WP:V in its current state. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 18:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teens in the City (novel)[edit]

Delete. Purports to describe a yet-to-be-released novel, by an author whose credentials, or even existence, are nowhere established. Would seem to fail any threshhold per WP:BK. cjllw ʘ TALK 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable novel. Jazznutuva 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable novel. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't even come up on Amazon, which is hard to accomplish. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and it's so not notable that, as Badlydrawnjeff notes, it is not even on Amazon. Acalamari 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not on Amazon? Doesn't even approach the same universe that "notability" exists in. Maybe someday it'll be notable, but certainly not now. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even published yet, and article strongly suggests it won't be notable even when published, as it seems to be only released locally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reference to the title in conjunction with the author's last name. Not notable. - Fordan (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Georgy[edit]

can't find any info anywhere on this "notable" musician. Calliopejen1 10:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - I don't know this musician... but at the same time, an Egyptian musician who is notable will not have much written about him in English... it will all be in Arabic which won't pick up on any search engine I know. Jazznutuva 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An Egyptian musician with an album at #1 for ten weeks in the Egyptian charts would score some hits on Google, even in English. He doesn't. The page's creator, Bob Mears, had one other edit - the creation of Anthony Dilorenzo which was deleted as nonsense (see his talk page). This is rubbish as well. Emeraude 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When was he born? When did he have his number one hit? When was the car accident? When did he almost die of alcohol posinoning? These questions are not answered in the article. There are not any sources listed, so none of this can be verified. Looks like a hoax to me. Would a Jazz musician in Egypt have an album named "The Sounds of Awesome"? I think not. --Cyrus Andiron 13:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Ann Bennett[edit]

wikipedia is not a memorial, if there's anything truly notable here it should be merged into the relevant article. Calliopejen1 10:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. - Richard Cavell 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for this. Over 5000 people have been killed in the intifada since it began (384 others in 2002), and unless they already passed WP:N for other reasons, this is not the place to list them all — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because it's part of an ongoing and important historical topic. --24.154.173.243 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability beyond being a victim. StuffOfInterest 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just like the articles on the various Virginia Tech students that were properly deleted. Nyttend 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Kluk[edit]

Prodded with a reason "Being a victim does not make one notable.". Prod removed by creator with argument "This is an ongoing case and it is not yet established whether she was murdered in the church or not, just that her body was found there; irrelevant - this is a notable case receiving heavy media coverage, much of which focuses on the victim herself." I still claim this person is not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. PS. Update - I also agree with renaming and refocusing the article on the crime, not the person._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a victim does not automatically make one non-notable either. I find numerous articles about her specifically in The Scotsman[37], The Scottish Christian[38], the BBC, et al. 282 Google News hits (and those expire after a month or so). 27,500 Ghits on her name alone, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Many of the articles mentioned earlier contain detailed biographical information about her. She has wide name recognition and is a significant individual in an extremely controversial trial and a major news story. Since she's been dead for more than three days, it isn't a stretch to say that she's received significant long-term notice, and is therefore notable. --Charlene 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Rename and merge(edited to add) It should be renamed Angelika Kluk murder case since it appears to be notorious enough to justify an article, similar to Lindbergh kidnapping. or it could be kept with the present title like Laci Peterson. The stub article should be easy to merge. On review, there have now been 24 stories on BBC alone during the 5 week trial, and a sheriff, a priest, and a businessman have been questioned about their relationships, if any, with the deceased, while a handyman is on trial for it. For one thing, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, to tell the sad story of everyone who is murdered. For another, any violent crime in a fairly low-crime country gets widespread newsmedia coverage through the trial, but Wikipedia is not a newsmagazine. WP:N Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Third, per the essay WP:NOTNEWS, some Wikipedians distinguish between what is newsworthy and what is encyclopedic. Only those crimes which get more than immediate news coverage need articles. Edison 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent arguments of Edison and nom. Matter of fact, I think Charlene makes a good argument too, but every murder is tragic and any murder victim will get news coverage. This article strays too close to what Wikipedia is not - it's more appropriate for Wikinews. Plus, there's not much content here and we can always recreate if more encyclopedic information emerges.--Kubigula (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this. I'm not sure we should keep it, but it is a really BIG news story in Scotland. It isn't just a typical murder, it happened in a church, there's a high-profile trial, and the involvement of a local parish priest. There is multiple independent media coverage - not just a story on a wire but TV and major newspapers have followed it. I'm going to list this on Wikiprohect Scotland - so give some of those folks a few days to look it over. Myself, abstain.--Doc^g 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus and Edison. Yes, there's lots of news coverage, but Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. And the coverage really is just crime and court reporting. I wasn't able to find much in the way of "big picture" commentary, or broader conclusions that were being drawn here: no "Angelika's law", no moral panic. Ms Kluk's death was and is big news, but that's all it is, and it belongs on Wikinews because news does not belong in an encyclopedia until it gets turned into something more that just random noise. If, when the trial is over, the events generate published commentary and analysis, then we can create an article. For now, we can't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not asking for this to be kept. But consider that it isn't just a murder. It has been front-page news for several weeks - and is again today. It initially raised questions of the openness of RC churches offering hospitality to potentially dangerous vagrants. Then it emerged that the priest had been having a relationship with her. Then Donald Findlay QC, defending the vagrant, suggested (I think) that the priest had motive. Now apparently a Glasgow sheriff was giving her 'golfing tuition'. There are forensic evidence issues too. Here are the headlines from the Scotsman alone [39]. The BBC has run 24 stories so far, and the trial goes on [40] --Doc^g 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but god bless her and her family.--Vintagekits 10:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. If she really is a significant individual in an extremely controversial trial, as Charlene says, and this is documented in the article, I may change my mind. Currently the article says nothing that would distinguish her from hundreds of other (alleged) rape and murder victims. --Aleph-4 12:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shug, yes well, quite. I could expand the article and provide impeccable sourcing. But I'm not sure I want to, and I'm not sure we'd want to keep it even if I did. But if you check the links I provided above you will see she is/was a significant individual in an [extremely?] controversial trial--Doc^g 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are say Doc, I feel the same way meself. Maybe we should invoke "wiki is not a crystalball" and lets see about this next month after the dust settles.--Vintagekits 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK delete without prejudice to recreation in a month or more if anyone wants. If recreated later, we can consider it again, it certainly should NOT be speedied.--Doc^g 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - 100%.--Vintagekits 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a famous case and will continue to be for some time Paul210 13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC) after looking at the rest of the discussion I would also be happy with a rename solution.--Vintagekits 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the case has caused some scandal, particularly as it involves a sexually active priest who took her in. --MacRusgail 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. My vote now goes to rename, on the basis of "... trial" or "... murder"[reply]

The fact is that Angelika Kluk is not notable except for this incident. We don't have enough information to write a biography on her, and even if we did, would it be encyclopedic. Perhaps the murder, scandal, trial and associated events are encyclopedic - although it is difficult to say whether they are just today's NEWS or will be referred to in a few months at all. However, even if the murder and trial are encyclopedic - they and not she should be the subject of the article. Delete this. If someone wants to create an article Angela Kluk murder, they can do so later. My point is that someone may at some point write a chapter in a book about the murder - but no-one will ever publish a biography of the victim herself. The incident made the front pages of the Newspapers for weeks - but no one would have thought to write her up in the obituaries.--Doc^g 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we should consider merging this into an article about the case itself, which may be notable (like Virginia Tech is notable, but most of the victims are not).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This case has all the makings of a Law and Order or CSI episode, with an attractive young woman who has allegedly been involved with several important men over 60 years of age and who got murdered brutally by someone. A titillating book might well be written about it or a movie could be made based on it. There is no barrier to re-creating the story if it proves as significant as other notorious murder cases, but it should be about the murder rather than the individual, just as we have Lindbergh kidnapping \and no article on the victim, Charles A. Lindbergh, jr. Looking at the stories, they keep restating about 90% the same facts, then adding one more bit of testimony, as the trial progresses slowly. I just do not see that as a real-time crime story of a crude crime it has shown itself to be encyclopedic yet. Edison 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ RenameThere is no question whatever that the murder trial is notable, even if the poor woman's life was not. However, the article itself fails to indicate why this might be true (indeed if 20% of the effort put into this debate had been put into the article ....). The conclusion I draw is that in its present form the article fails 'to assert the significance of the subject' and should go. On the other hand if it was moved to Angela Kluk murder and Edison and Doc G simply cut and paste some of their comments and added a reference or two I'd probably change my mind. (I'm having an indecisive day). Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Murder trial of Angelika Kluk or something similar. This is definitely a noteable topic, but the focus of the noteworthyness is the court case, not the victim. Sorry, but it is usually true of crime victims... --Mais oui! 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mais oui!. Very notable trial. Maccoinnich 18:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, if rename is the consensus, fine. But not 'trial'. The trial is only notable because of the murder Angelika Kluk murder would probably be better. --Doc^g 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, funnily enough, I had just been thinking exactly the same thing myself. --Mais oui! 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my mind, as noted above, after looking at the wealth of material at the BBC [41]. Most murder trials do not have so much lurid material that they have to go on over 5 weeks. A sheriff said he sat with her for 2 minutes, after giving her a golf lesson, then at the trial a security video shows it was 45 minutes [42]. A priest said he had a "sexual relationship" with her, then said it did not involve intercourse [43]. The priest said he did not know about the trapdoor where the body was concealed, but testimony said he did. [44] She had a "married lover" whose wife was angry. [45]. Clearly a major story in the UK (27,000 Google hits) over an extended period, with lots of material to write an interesting article from. Edison 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable victim with lots of media attention --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment. This case generated at lot of interest at the time that it arose. I am not sure whether legal proceedings have been completed, but when they are, the article should be converted to a general one of the murder case, (being moved i.e. renamed) appropriately. Peterkingiron 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename probably Angela Kluk Murder. Sweeping scandal like this under the rug is what got the Catholic Church is such deep financial trouble, at least in English speaking countries. I suspect that this has gone past a news story, and is now history, maybe evolving historyPustelnik 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the name Angelika Kluk is going to appear in many contexts as a short hand for the issues the case illustrates. It makes sense to allready have a page which people who don't recognise it can find. This is exactly the benefit of wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia Jeniswitch 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That can be sorted by a redirect.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the trial is still going on. The prosecution case has just been completed. Now comes the defense case. Edison 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has previously been noted, this is a high profile case and I would argue that the Wikipedia entry should be named for the case, rather than the individual. However, I do not think the entry should be written until after the case is closed as we do not yet know what will come out of it and what the full significance and impact will be. Few murder trials are covered in such detail - indeed, few crimes in Anderston are covered at all. --JamesTheNumberless 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also agree with renaming the article after the case. The murder case is notable, the victim herself is not --JamesTheNumberless 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdiozProduction[edit]

Delete - I think this article is a bit too promotional... it was originally speedy deleted, but the new iteration is not much better... however since it was remade felt it should be discussed. Jazznutuva 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep as it stands, but unless there's a Ukranian or Russian speaker in a position to source this I suspect it's going to keep being renominated — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an advert, and makes no claims to notability even if would be written neutrally. Fails WP:CORP. Fram 12:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the reasons listed above. Acalamari 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:46, 28 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 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh honey[edit]

Article tagged AfD in Dec 06, removee to cite further sources, none forthcoming - Article is OR - Tiswas^(t/c) 11:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no proof that this foodstuff is notable enough to have an article of its own - surely anything special could be dealt with in the Honey article of a food related Bangladesh article. Madmedea 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throw into the pit of despair The second sentence of the article is "Little is known about the honey industry in Bangladesh." The last sentence is "The industry is somewhat profitable in Bangladesh." There is no chance that anyone could possibly learn anything from this article. Feeeshboy 15:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The six sentences of this article are futility defined. The only worthwhile bit is the "See more: Honey." --Dynaflow 08:55, 29 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 Alps.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Countries[edit]

The whole page is nothing but original research. The main author has decided for himself which countries he thinks should be defined as Alpine Countries, including Germany but excluding France and Italy on very ill-defined grounds. Another problem, linked to the first, is that not a single reference is given. Thus it is never proved that the name Alpine Countries is used to refer to a specific group of countries. It is even less clear why some countries with parts of the Alps are included and others are not, it appears to be just the personal opinion of the main author. The article if of no scientific or encyclopedic value whatsoever, POV and original research from the beginning to the end. I suggest it be deleted. MartinTremblay 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alps. A Google search reveals that the "Alpine counties" are nothing different than the countries that include a part of the Alps. As an example, [46], at page 2 includes Italy and France in the list. Tizio 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with Tizio. Madmedea 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alps. Strange original research. The Alps are also in Poland? --Oakshade 16:32, 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpstyle[edit]

Topic is relevant, but the article is not encyclopedic, poorly written, collection of external links. Ilse @ 11:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic, over 1 million ghits for the term. Needs developing not deleting.Madmedea 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: when I would clean up the article and only leave in the good content, the article would become empty. – Ilse @ 00:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, afd is not cleanup. Recury 15:30, 30 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 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plynlimon Road[edit]

Delete - Does not look encyclopaedic to me. Welcome to prove me wrong, but unless somebody does it, it should go. MadMaxDog 09:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability, or anything much. "Plynlimon Road is a street in Christchurch, New Zealand ". Well, Cissbury Road is a street in London, England. I'm sitting there right now, in the library. I'm not going to write an article about it, though. BTLizard 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Its just a good-faith newbie article, BTLizard. If he hadn't gone and never written anything else for months afterwards, I'd put a message on his talk page explaining why such articles ain't worth the time. MadMaxDog
  - Oh yes, so it is, I should have checked the history. Sorry if I sounded snappish. BTLizard 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As non-notable as the street in front of my house. Edison 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAI. Someguy1221 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a frequent visitor to Christchurch, I had to check a map to find out where this street was (and I used to stay not that far from there in Ilam). A really minor road - doesn't come close to WP:50k. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 28 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 two latter "keep" contributions have been disregarded as mere votes. Sandstein 09:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Property and Freedom Society[edit]

Notability has been questioned, Procedural nomination on my part

No opinion I mistakenly thought it a copyvio from the site, but,, seeing N had been questioned, I brought it here. Copyvio or not, the photos are not significant content and the article will be stronger--and look stronger--without them. DGG 22:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is about a group which is barely referenced or cited, even though some of the individuals in the group are noteworthy on their own. The group just doesn't seem notable and has VERY few references to it in media or journals or papers etc. Ikilled007 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fewer than 600 Google hits; more tellingly, fewer than 5000 visits registered on the website's counter. Not a major force in economic thinking. BTLizard 13:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the edit history of the article, enough people seem to be willing to work on the article; that in itself tells something about its notability. Intangible2.0 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The group is notable enough to have warranted multiple, independent sources. A recent AP article, of which two versions were published (here and here), cited the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League as finding this group notable enough to comment on (critically). DickClarkMises 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion As the original contributor of the article, I'm rethinking the group's notability, if for no other reason than the fact that the group seems no more notable than its least notable members. I'm now thinking that the sources above are really more about Hoppe than PFS, at least with regards to the controversy that they cover. DickClarkMises 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep --R e m i 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Baronnet 17:36, 30 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, as the nominator is a single-purpose account and in bad faith. Sean William 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Dreher[edit]

Non-notable. Clohnyn 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep possible bad faith nomination and personal attack by nominator (see original verson of nomination). --Canley 13:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the article, and recommend speedy delete of this nomination, since the diff by Canley indicates the whole nom to be vandalism. Nominator also put Wookiepedia up for deletion, apparently as revenge for Encyclopedia Dramatica being deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Canley. -- GJD 13:36, 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 speedy keep, nominator was a single purpose account acting in bad faith. Sean William 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia[edit]

No claim to notability other than being Sci-Fi Site of the Week. Nothing like some deleted sites (like Encyclopedia Dramatica). Clohnyn 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This should be the third nomination. The first two discussions can be found here and here. --Onorem Dil 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Wookieepedia's article on itself presents sufficient proof of notability, such as being mentioned by the TIME magazine, New York Times, Jimbo Wales, at least four official Star Wars writers, and TheForce.Net. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. - Sikon 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Imperialles 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Darth Gladius 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica has been mentioned in The Guardian, The Washington Post, Toronto Sun, Ottawa Sun, Spiegal, some French newspaper, MSNBC News, 6 major internet blogs, and probably some other places by now. That's more than this site.

Clohnyn 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of one article is not a reason to delete another article. If you have an issue concerning Encyclopedia Dramatica, nominating other articles to compare to it is not the way to address it. --Onorem Dil 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, per Sikon. The Wookieepedian 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The place is bad. So is the article >:-D

Keep. What, did the article suddenly start sucking or something? The fact that this is the third nomination suggests to me that a third nomination was unwarranted from the get-go. DrVerlucci 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What the hell is going on? Are you going to delete Uncyclopedia also? Eddie Guimont 08:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sikon Percy Snoodle 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Kuralyov 12:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I have my doubts about the faith of this nomination... this AfD was the account's first and only edit, until nominating Rod Dreher for deletion with the reason "non-notable asshole". Seems to be trying to make a POINT, and the references to Encyclopedia Dramatica speak for themselves. --Canley 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Sikon and Canley; when one of the arguments about a French newspaper is being liked to the "Wimp" article, I become suspicious of the motivations of the nominator. -- GJD 13:27, 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 as unsourced material. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Ned Kennedy[edit]

There are no sources cited for this article and a search of the web, academic journals, and LexisNexis news search do not reveal anything. I suspect this is a hoax and at the moment we've no way of proving otherwise. Tuba mirum 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This could almost be speedied. YechielMan 02:40, 22 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 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. I would have remembered this guy from my U.S. History classes had he been real. Anyone that rides 2500 miles on a horse and meets the president would be memorable enough to merit inclusion into our textbooks. --Cyrus Andiron 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no evidence of notability provided- many people meet the President of the United States and ride horses. Thunderwing 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem to be a hoax[47], but hardly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established. --Crunch 11:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist One person wants to delete because nobody could have done this, another because many people do. I think longer exposure is needed for the remote possiblility that someone finds some evidence. DGG 09:56, 29 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 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promised Lands[edit]

Recommend deletion per WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL: No IMDB entry for film; does not appear in Steven Seagal's IMDB entry; no WP:RS offered for existence of film --Rrburke^(talk) 14:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not mentioned on the Steven Seagal article. It's clearly not notable, and maybe not in existence. YechielMan 02:56, 22 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 12:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seagal's unofficial fan forum (a group I'd expect to know about such things ;) ) links back to the WP entry as the only evidence that this film will exist. Dppowell 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to confirm existence, let alone establish notability. Jay32183 22:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Prodego ^talk 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual Model Theory of Human Understanding[edit]

Completing a nomination. I don't understand what this is about, so I bring this here. Tizio 12:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The originator appears to be a good-faith editor with an interest in such topics, and there is a small external reference here. BTLizard 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mail to a mailing list. It begins with "Please avoid these!", obviously in reference to the fact that the quoted message is spam.

I have really no problem in keeping this article, but I'd like to see someone saying "yes, I know what this is about, it's about X and Y, and is notable because of Z", rather than trusting the good faith of the original author. Tizio 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Weak Transwiki +add citition needed tags. --R e m i 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Where? Tizio 12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — all Google hits I can find on the title and permutations thereof are Wikipedia mirrors. It looks for all the world like promotion of an ill-defined fringe idea. Anville 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have any reliable sources. Eluchil404 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS, no WP:N, mailing lists are sources to be strongly avoided. Sandstein 06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks proper sources, probably could have been speedied. Russeasby 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Closing early per nominators request to withdraw nomination following the addition of references to the article. All comments were Keep also. Adambro 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George McKenzie (wrestler)[edit]

Hi i hope i'm doing this right. came across this article when going thru the cleanup needed category. i added a "prod" tag to this article and someone then endorsed it before it was removed , so now I am nominating for deletion. I can find one or tow hits for a wrestler named George McKenzie or George MacKenzie on google but thats the extent of the hits. If there are sources like the person who removed the prod says there are, then their certainly not evident to me! the aritcle claims to know where he lived, who knows if thats accurate. anyway what are your thoughts? Irreverent Juggalo 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)— Irreverent Juggalo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I was the one who removed the {{prod}}. MacKenzie is clearly a major figure in a major sport & the fact that he competed in five Olympics is easily sourced, and the proposed prod reason ("no sources; no hope for being expanded; google search does not bring up any non-trivial results for a wrestler named George MacKenzie or George McKenzie") is patently ridiculous since any list of British wrestling champions or Olympic competitors clearly shows him. I agree it needs expanding and rewriting but that's a reason to expand and rewrite, not delete. I have, however, already renamed the article prior to this AfD as his name was spelt incorrectly in the title - the current page is now at George Mackenzie (wrestler). The incorrect spelling of his name may have accounted for the lack of Ghits originally. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well put the sources in the article then man! theres nothing at all "patently ridiculous" about it because right now theres nothing that substantiates it! thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irreverent Juggalo (talk • contribs).— Irreverent Juggalo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Even if he only competed in a single Olympics, that is enough to satisfy WP:BIO as it relates to athletes - Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports. I'm not sure how he could be more notable. The Olympics are the the highest level in regards to ameteur sports. --Cyrus Andiron 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added the references given above to the article. Finding and adding them took all of five minutes; probably less time than it took the (spa) nominator to set up this AfD — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. IronDuke 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to withdraw the nominating now that sources have actually been added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:46, 27 April 2007 (talk • contribs) Irreverent Juggalo

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NawlinWiki. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moditerianism[edit]

The article has information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and contains a newly coined neologism BigHairRef | Talk 12:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a philosophy I can subscribe to in this case. Delete as nonsense. Emeraude 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. Complete bollocks. Delete. BTLizard 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedily, por favor. IronDuke 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for additional info Im aware the page is listed for speedy but I listed it in case it didn't meet the complete nonsense criteria as there might be more info to come. ALthough I strongly doubt this. BigHairRef | Talk 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this definitely meets the speedy criteria. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:18, 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. Krimpet (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forced homosexuality[edit]

No sources, pure OR, term is non-notable

Comment- lack of references makes it a difficult call at the momement. Thunderwing 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- a quick google search indicates some source basis for the idea of "forced homosexuality"- however, the reliability of some of the sources is questionable. Thunderwing 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nom). Thunderwing, rather than making a quick Google search, would you be willing to engage in a slightly longer one? If you click on the (reputable) links that use this phrase, it does not mean what this article says it means. And isn't notable under any definition; a handful of ghits does not confer notability. IronDuke 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR. As with IronDuke, I can't find any source using the phrase in this context — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be 100% unsourced OR. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect or keep. Need for cleanup is not a reason to delete, but if there's nothing here but OR... it should be redirected (to homosexuality or rape?) until improvements actually happen. It still has a lot of incoming links and seems like a real concept. --W.marsh 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested on this page that the article needs to be cleaned up. And I don't know what you mean about "incoming links". This article has no sources whatever. Merging an unsupported agglomeration of unsupported facts into good article is not a solution. IronDuke 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links means what appears on "what links here". Links from other articles. I also didn't mention anything about merging. --W.marsh 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed you meant merge, as a redirect would simply delete the article in question. As for it having a number of articles linked to it, that's because someone put it in the BDSM template, which is on a lot of articles. I haven't looked at them all, but I have seen no articles which actually use this term (and still no sources for it, which is the main thing). IronDuke 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mark as needing citations and not meeting quality standards; if no citations are given with in a few months, then maybe delete. --R e m i 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Femdom which it claims to be an aspect of. Or the Forced Feminization section of Feminization.Chunky Rice 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an icky article, but needing cleanup is no reason to delete. I wish some of these issues would be taken up more vigorously on article talk pages before attempting an AfD. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would read the above before posting. Needing cleanup is not the reason this article was put up for AfD. It's because there are absolutely no reliable sources that support the existence and/or notability of this term. IronDuke 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can find references. Unfortunately, not everything in sexual subcultures has yet been documented in good sources. This doesn't mean it's made up - in fact, I'm pretty sure this article is accurate, by and large - but if the only sources are personal experience and/or discussion forums, email lists, blogs etc. then it's not ready for being in an encyclopedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:59, 29 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 with many suggestions to merge to Kenny's deaths. Nabla 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenny's deaths[edit]

Seriously, do I actually need to go into detail as to why this sort of fancruft rubbish shouldn't be poisoning Wikipedia further? Drat (Talk) 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment if you want your reasoning for putting an article up for AfD to be taken seriously, you should. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason. DarkAudit 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it'd be plainly obvious. Believe me, I realise the importance of a reasoning directly grounded in policies and/or precedents. But a brief look is about as much as it'd take for someone to assess the encyclopaedic worth of this "article".--Drat (Talk) 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kenny's deaths says probably more than we need to know on the matter; we certainly don't need this kind of laundry list. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kenny's deaths. DarkAudit 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think merging would overwhelm the article. And anyway this is totally original research WP:OR.Madmedea 14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that he dies a lot is notable, but the individual deaths are not. Nemu 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above, it's noted that Kenny dies a lot in South Park, but the way he dies isn't notable. Acalamari 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either Kenny McCormick or Kenny's deaths. --98E 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or per...haps keep (although it is difficult for me to see the value in the information beyond entertainment). Perhaps this could be transwikied to Wikiversity or something; they have all sorts of "weird" college classes now days and maybe would be useful or anthropologists or writers. --R e m i 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is entirely useful to see when and how Kenny has died in the series. This article is original and would be too large to merge with another page. --Kuririna 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kenny's deaths. Captain Infinity 00:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge'. With ultra-notable fiction like this, even the minor material does develop its own notability as well. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember this being separate, so definitely merge with Kenny's deaths. Notable aspect of the series! :)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. I haven't seen a good argument for how this article could be used by anyone except fans of the show (although some good attempts). It's just too much of a stretch to say there's something valuable to an encyclopedia here. And when the show eventually dies, this article will be even less interesting to its fans. Create a fan site and put it there. Noroton 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge into Kenny's deaths). Hugely notable show. Kenny dying a significant aspect of it. Wikipedia not paper. AndyJones 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (at worst, merge). Its a list of unimportant facts sure, but isn't 90% of Wikipedia arguably unimportant? It's not hurting anybody to keep this article. Tylerco113x 01:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kenny's deaths. One article about a particular running gag seems more then enough. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge either one works for me but I believe this is notable enough and has enough information to warrant either an article or being merged with the other article people are mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shimonnyman (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with Kenny's deaths Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory, Design and Calibration of a BF3 Tube Neutron Detector[edit]

This article appears to be a copyright violation, copied and pasted from an online textbook. Evidence:

The article was not significantly altered or developed after the original posting yet it is highly detailed. So it must have been written some time previously
The article was posted all at once and as unformatted text (no bold, no superscripts etc), so it must come from some outside source and wasn't written with the Wikipedia editor
The article contains line breaks and indents that are consistent with it having been copied and pasted from a previously formatted page such as a web page or PDF, and inconsistent with having been written in WP
Uploaded images were not copyright-cleared. The author was made aware of this and was warned for removing tags, but didn't address the issue
The article reads like an entry from a textbook andy 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone can find evidence of a copyvio. This doesn't appear to be either OR or a how-to but a straightforward description of an existing technical process. I agree it needs sources, and while usually I'd try to dig them out myself I don't know enough on atomic engineering to be sure I'm citing correctly. None of the reasons given in the nom are convincing. Plenty of people (including me) will compose longer articles in a word-processor rather than in the small Wikipedia editor window. Wherever it was written, the fact that it's unformatted certainly isn't a reason for deletion; plenty of newer editors aren't familiar with Wikipedia's (non-standard) text formatting; likewise, while yes the line breaks are consistent with someone writing for another source, they're also consistent with someone writing who just isn't familiar with Mediawiki software. Googling a bunch of random phrases from the text doesn't bring up any matches on any of them, so it seems unlikely to have been copied from a website. Finally, "reads like a textbook" is a criticism of tone, not grounds for deletion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely inappropriate to have a highly detailed description of how to build a lab instrument with no references whatsoever, and no demonstration that the doodad is important enough to be in an encyclopedia. If not a copyvio, then it is clearly original research, and it is full of undefined tech terms like "PuBe." Also even if it is not a hoax or a copyright violation, Wikipedia is not a big "How To" manual. Fails WP:N, WP:A and WP:NOR. Edison 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Transwiki - If it is not a copyright violation, move it to Wikibooks as a stub. --R e m i 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a how-to and not an encyclopedia article. This might be somebody's paper which would explain why it smells sontrgly of copyvio. -- Whpq 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - As-is this article fails WP:ATT. WP:N is hard to discern since I don't have enough information to obtain a context for it. Much depends on whether "BF3" is a standard type of neutron detector or someone's specific brand. An option is to redirect this to neutron detection. --EMS | Talk 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BF3 is a particular type of neutron detector (made of Boron Trifluoride, or BF₃) rather than a brand. Google the phrase and you find a fair few people making & referring to them, so I think it does pass muster as a valid (if specialised) description of a scientific instrument & the process it's used for, rather than a how-to. Would probably make sense to redirect to BF3 tube neutron detector, or even just BF3 tube — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the info. I will then maintain my "weak delete" due to lack of attribution, no (current) evidence of notability, and this being an abandonned article (as its creator has done nothing to reinsert the figures or address the AfD). However, with some cleanup and citations this could be turned into a keepable article. --EMS | Talk 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As previously stated I don't know enough particle physics to do it myself with any confidence, but would it make more sense to clean up & merge this into a section of Neutron detection, at least for the moment, since no other detection method has its own page at present? It would need serious cleanup, as Neutron detection is a very well written & formatted page at present and TD&COABF3TND is currently a mess — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been Googling BF3 tube neutron detectors, as you do, and there are a lot of sites detailing various ways to make them and several commercial sellers. This article is sketchy and simplistic (e.g. compare it with this description or this one). I don't see that we'd be doing the world a favour by giving it a section of Neutron detection. andy 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with Andy on this. That there are no other articles on neutron detectors present is not a good sign, and dumping this into the neutron detection article will only warp it unless other detectors are discussed or if this topic should happen to be a good prototypical example of such a detector.
    Since none of us know all that much about this business, I have posted a notice of this AfD on talk:neutron detection. Hopefully that will enable us to obtain better guidance here. --EMS | Talk 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've posted a similar request at WikiProject Physics - I think this AfD itself now warrants an {{expert}} tag — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Jtrainor 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, it's certainly not a hoax - the issue is whether it warrants its own page, not whether it exists — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edgar181 per WP:CSD#A7. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Lord[edit]

CSD A7; have placed db-bio tags several times, but always deleted by the owner of the page Myke Cuthbert 14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-no assertion of notability.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. "Specializes in very little other than being a general annoyance to those around him". Consider the mission accomplished. BTLizard 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Article fails to assert in what way the subject is notable to satisfy WP:BIO. Adambro 15:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac VerStandig[edit]

Blogger & former college-newspaper-editor bio fails WP:BIO#Primary_criterion_for_Notability_of_people: has not "been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", and is not a special case; no secondary-source Google hits; possible WP:COI, whether WP:COI#Self-promotion or WP:COI#Close_relationships --Rrburke^(talk) 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one claim to notability is watered down as a decision of his colleagues on the editorial board, which means he himself is not notable. I think you'd have to do something extraordinary as a college newspaper editor to be notable, and that isn't enough (particularly since it was a "protest" similarly echoed elsewhere). --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editor of a student newspaper who never did anything notable seems to fail WP:BIO. PaddyM 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn with no dissenting votes. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dance the Night Away (Mavericks)[edit]

Non-notable song, makes no establishment of notability. Song peaked at #63 so I can't see any reason why it would be notable -- it doesn't seem to be one of their signature tunes. I'm rather familiar with the Mavericks' music, and yet I don't know this song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn per BTLizard's discovery. I've removed the prod tag from this page and moved the page itself to Dance the Night Away (Mavericks song) to fit the naming conventions. So no deletion for this page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, charting song. Needs some expansion and possibly a move to fit the naming conventions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty sure this went top twenty in the UK. BTLizard 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me for being so ethnocentric! If you can find sources that claim that this song was an international hit, then please do add them to the article! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it actually got to number four! This is the source. BTLizard 15:40, 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 and redirect to List of wikis as it is not the subject of multiple independent non-trivial mentions in published works. WjBscribe 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CreationWiki[edit]

While this was nominated a year ago with a no-consensus result. A few months after that, it was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki (2nd nomination). 2 months ago, the page was restored, but as a redirect to the list of wikis. Today, the article was restored. I do not have access to deleted content, so I'm not sure if this is speediable or not. However, there is a big WP:COI in that the article creator is a CreationWiki admin. Previous community consensus decided this topic was NN, and I do not believe an admin from the cite in question can judge accurately that the notability has changed since then. There are also no 3rd party sources supplied that mention CreationWiki. Andrew c 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we can't have an informative article for CreationWiki as well as EvoWiki. Could you patiently explain to me why a CreationWiki article is inappropriate? Thank you!--Ajoust 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you to take a look at the previous successful nomination. Arguments used are WP:WEB. The article has no 3rd party sources, doesn't explain its notability.-Andrew c 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of wikis. dab (𒁳) 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as repost of deleted material and tagged as such. NeoFreak 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete they remain NN. No objection to an article if they ever do become N, but the article itself says its still in the early stages of construction. DGG 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular delete and/or redirect to List of wikis, speedy declined as it sadly isn't a repost of deleted material. Does not meet WP:WEB and there is a serious WP:COI problem here. --Core desat 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I see no reason why sites that fail WP:WEB cannot be redirects to "list of websites" articles. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe CreationWiki deserves its own article (although I'm opposed to their views). CreationWiki also attacks Wikipedia by claiming that the recurring removal indicates a hatred and therefore lack of NPOV towards CreationWiki [48]. Riki 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A website not liking Wikipedia isn't a reason to keep an article on it if it doesn't meet notability guidelines and has problems with COI. --Coredesat 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree (and was going to say something similar). Also, I started going through the List of wikis and checking Alexa scores. I haven't been through the whole list yet, but through the first 40 or so listed, there was only one that had a lower Alexa score, and that was ZineWiki (note how the article, though, has many independent sources cited). Wikible also has a lower Alexa score, but doesn't have an article. I know Alexa scores aren't everything, and I know I haven't gone through the whole list yet, but it really seems like CreationWiki isn't notable.-Andrew c 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was mentioned by Wired magazine. Jazzman123 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the WP:WEB criteria more closely #1 states The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Wired is a single source. We do not have multiple sources. Furthermore, if we read the Wired article, all it says is "there's also CreationWiki, an encyclopedia of creation science written from a Christian perspective. While CreationWiki remains mostly unscathed by the web's parodists, Conservapedia has..." Is this anything but trivial?-Andrew c 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak[edit]

This page was originally deleted through AfD. DRV overturned, for a variety of reasons, including concerns over lack of a closing rationale, and the possibly of the subject meeting WP:BIO for work within Canada. The article is resubmitted for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - Does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF and just being the victim of a crime does not make one notable. Thow in WP:MEMORIAL for good measure. Same as for my previous view on the AfD. --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Only notability is the VT event, and notable info about her is already included in that article. Doesn't meet BIO since all coverage is incedental to the VT event and lacking in depth. --Minderbinder 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe nothing changed since the last AfD, which resulted in deletion. This person is only "notable" because of media coverage of her as a Canadian victim of the massacre. I do not believe this is enough for her to be consider notable within the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines invoked. PrinceGloria 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) PS. Actually Minderbrinder said it better than me above...[reply]

I don't want to get into a long argument here again, I'll just reference the point above... But she's still "notable." --Oakshade 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. It does seem that Wikipedia does not have a very measured response to events like this. Perhaps things would be better if there were a presumption that a person who dies before becoming the subject of an article here should not have an article written about them until a year after their demise. BTLizard 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre is another option for a redirect. It seems to already contain all the notable info about her. --Minderbinder 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Meets WP:BIO. Is the primary subject of multiple 3rd party non-trivial published works, like from the Canadian Press, Radio Canada, The Globe and Mail The Gazette (Montreal), The Daily News (Halifax) and The Toronto Star . WP:MEMORIAL doesn't apply as it refers to non-notable people who don't fall into our standards (this isn't an article about someone's grandfather that has no published work about them, not to mention multiple major national ones) and WP:PROF doesn't apply as she's not notable due to her academic achievements. The article is highly referenced. --Oakshade 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered below, plus Edison's argument. Michaelas¹⁰ 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. Ms Couture-Nowak has been the subject of multiple reliable sources that are independent of her and intellectually independent. The arguments for deletion are based in a subjective notion of "inherent notability". As editors, we shouldn't make that judgment, as it violates Wikipedia:No original research. If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it, then we have proof that it is notable; in this case, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was deemed "worthy of note" by various sources.

I also cannot understand the insistence that she must have acquired notability during a certain timeframe. Requiring that she have become notable before her death instead of after is no more or less absurd than requiring that she become notable between her 30th and 32th birthday. Notable is notable, regardless of when or where or why it happened. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ultimate question for me on an AfD, when BLP or privacy-related issues are not involved, is whether having a given article makes us a better encyclopedia. In this case the answer is yes. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virginia Tech Massacre and the list of victims. She played a part in the tragedy and should be appropriately mentioned in the main article. But Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the article is largely a memorial page:"..had a deep love for children..proud French Canadian.." Although she was an instructor, the article does not satisfy WP:PROF. Being mentioned in news stories does not automatically confer notability, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news magazine. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS which gives the views of several editors on this issue. Also see note 3 of WP:N "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Edison 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Virginia Tech Massacre. We shouldn't rely on those reports as the reason for keeping the article. If this person is notable, so is basically every 9/11 victim who received an extensive media coverage due to reaction to his death or the way he died. We have previously deleted (see archived debates) several such articles regardless of apparent media coverage, and I would normally foresee a similar result here. Furthermore, if all biographies on Wikipedia are constructed to only focus on major aspects of notability, this one would contain the sole sentence: "Jocelyne M. Couture-Nowak (1958 - April 16, 2007) was an instructor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia and was a victim of the Virginia Tech massacre". Either continuing to her personal life as a non-notable teacher, or focusing the entire article on the way she died, would be entirely unencyclopedic. I believe this is a good example when we should ignore all rules and simply apply common sense. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Common sense" tells us to have articles on people who are noteworthy, irregardless of the rationale for such note. If you have to quote IAR in a deletion discussion, there mustn't be much else to stand on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - She isn't noteworthy, her death is, and I don't see any particular reason why we should leave a non-noteworthy biography lying around. Common sense tells us a mere mention of her on the main massacre article would satisfy. Michaelas¹⁰ 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - She has become noteworthy due to the circumstances surrounding her death. With your logic, Don Young should be mentioned in United States House of Representatives because he's only noteworthy due to his office. That, of course, would be absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The circumstances surrounding her death aren't a good reason to include her entire biography — I'd avoid repeating myself. She deserves a mention under the "Attacks" section or the massacre timeline, which would sufficiently outline that. Michaelas¹⁰ 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable through multiple independent references. --Eastmain 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michaelas. I think you have to think about it this way: if she was not a victim of the shooting, would there be an article on her, ever? My answer would be no. She is not a professor, hasn't had any major academic contributions, and furthermore there would have been no verifiable sources. Look at all of the sources right now - there is not a single one that is NOT related to the Virginia Tech massacre. Thus, her notability is completely dependent on the Virginia Tech event, and her role in that is more incidental, unlike the shooter. Like any of the students who don't have any serious academic notability, being a victim alone is not enough to warrant an article. Tejastheory 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per every other comment that has been used on every other AfD in relation to this massacre. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Oakshade. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, does not meet WP:PROF, and the sources about her are incidental - incidental sources do not confer notability by themselves. If there are other sources that show notability for something other than the massacre, then they should be presented, but otherwise being a victim alone is not sufficient for notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reema Samaha and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan (though the closing admin should not use these as any sort of precedent). --Core desat 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because influential educator and one of only a few victims in a historic and record-breaking tragedy. Article has a determined readership, is relevant in a media sense, and is easily reference. Really bad faith nomination for deletion. I'm really disappointed to see this one here. --24.154.173.243 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a bad faith nomination. --Core desat 22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as someone with multiple, independent sources documenting her life; the WP article has 11 references. An article in the Washington Post with her name as the title is not incidental. --Myke Cuthbert 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note however, that there have been no articles about her independent of the Virginia shootings. Everything referenced so far has been articles written a few days after the event, either directly about the event, or memorializing her after death. In life, I don't think she did anything that would warrant enough notability, and as I've argued elsewhere, in her death as a purely incidental victim she is not notable enough. Tejastheory 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment, and I agree that almost everything comes from the VT shootings. However, I don't think that whether the subject did anything to warrant notability is an issue, she is notable. If we needed to decide who deserved to be notable, I think some people would want to remove porn stars, others athletes, others medieval musicologists (okay, I'm the only one who cares about them), and everyone would agree on Paris Hilton. But notability is largely decided off of Wikipedia, and we should report on it. Further, WP:MEMORIAL applies to what WP is not, not what major newspapers are not. If large news sources choose to publish a major obit., then that is notable. Thanks again for the comment--I'm glad that this discussion has largely been civil. --Myke Cuthbert 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there a criterion whereby Jocelyne Couture-Nowak is deleted by Seung-Hui Cho is not? Everything referenced so far has been articles written after the event; nothing he did in life before the VT shooting was notable. Obviously I don't think the latter article should be deleted, but I do think that many of the arguments against the JC-N article could apply to his as well. --Myke Cuthbert 03:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and Seung-Hui Cho is their role in the event. Couture-Nowak's role, as a victim who simply happened to be there, is incidental, and all the notable information about Nowak (i.e. killed in the shooting, and maybe her actions) can be easily contained in the victims page. Cho, on the other hand, had the major, or even defining role in the event, as the perpetrator. It would be impossible to include all of Cho's relevant information into the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tejastheory (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep, clearly meets WP:BIO. Everyking 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My feelings on this are conflicted but keep in mind that all the notable portions of her biography are tied to the fact that see was killed in the VT killings. NeoFreak 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here we go again :-/ I stand by all my previous comments on this article. Uhm, what can I say... she participated in the establishment of some school somewhere in Canada, allright. Doesn't meet WP:BIO IMHO. Then she got shot and died like the 31 other victims, that's it. I'm not sure what the "keepers'" rationale is. Clearly, a lot of Canadians feel that their country deserves to be represented in this well-covered incident. I strongly disagree with those who say that the fact that she has been mentioned in other (Canadian) media, is enough reason for inclusion. And saying that AfD on this is "bad faith" is about as good as those who said that deleting Waleed Shaalan was "islamophobia" and "white supremacy". Medico80 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that being the primary subject of published works by multiple reliable sources in only Canada means this topic isn't notable? (By the way, the American Associated Press wrote a piece about her that ran in the Washington Post [49] and the British The Guardian [50]) --Oakshade 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, she is mentioned being a victim, one among others, nothing else. Medico80 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two American stories are primarily about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak and her life, not the other victims. But do you feel that if only Canadian outlets had published works about this person, the topic isn't notable? --Oakshade 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If there had been a victim from my country, our local media would be all up in arms as well. I know from the blogosphere that there has been local focus on the Egyptian and Indonesian victims too. I guess all victims have been mentioned by their hometowns' newspapers, mayors and soforth. Medico80 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything against the sources, but I see a problem when you look at the sources and they are ALL related to the Virginia Tech event. She does not seem to have any verifiable notability outside of her relation to that one event, and her role in that one event was nearly incidental. If the media wants to sensationalize and make heroic stories about people, that's fine, but not everything the media reports on is notable. Tejastheory 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Arguements citing "multiple sources" are extremely misleading. WP:NOTE: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. This--a lack of intellectual independence in the "multiple sources" cited--is clearly the case, here. Wysdom 00:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the same exact few sources that every reporter/author in all 20 of the published works cited used to write their stories? --Oakshade 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But do a clean-up. Canadian media considered her death to be notable. The less notable elements of the article can be edited out. Canuckle 00:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- here is a more extended rationale---

From WP:BIO "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." True, but:
"The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." I think the coverage has been fairly superficial, being a recitation of the facts of her life, ie obituary-like; but:
"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There are multiple sources, yes; but:
"Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." And therein lies the problem -- all of the articles written about Ms Couture-Nowak, while not "trivial", have been essentially obituaries stemming from the attention she received being a victim in the massacre, not based on Couture-Nowak's life itself: that is the definition of incidental. (The rest: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable." Moot to this argument.)
In conclusion: Not for Wikipedia, should be moved to WikiBios, where the above criteria do not present a problem. Pablosecca 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that Mme Couture-Nowak's notability didn't stem from her death in the massacre, but the fact is the all the details reported about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak's life and work by reliable sources are not incidental. The reliable sources were inspired to write these non-incidental details because of the shootings, but that in no way transforms all the details written about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak's life to incidental.--Oakshade 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, I think you're conflating separate issues. The simple fact that we are in agreement that she would not have been a sufficient subject for an article entry prior to her death is a very strong indication of the incidental nature of the interest in her subsequent to the tragedy. Think about it: details are all we have when it comes to writing Wikipedia biographies. Separating them from the person is impossible and nonsensical.
Converesly, Kevin Granata's entry was initiated by the event at VTech, and to that extent it was also "incidental", but once the topic was broached, it was possible to find reason to find him notable based upon his professional achievements alone. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Granata.
This is why your sentence "The reliable sources were inspired to write these non-incidental details because of the shootings, but that in no way transforms all the details written about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak's life to incidental" -- muddles the two issues: the details of her life are the details of her life, what is incidental is her notability. I hope this clears things up for you.Pablosecca 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well reeferenced and well citedChickenboner 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pablo, you've said all that needed to be said here. Thanks a lot! I guess there's no need to say anything more. PrinceGloria 02:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I must be repeating myself, but this well-referenced article passes both WP:BIO and WP:PROF by a landslide. Again, nominating this for AfD was ill-advised in the first place... Ranma9617 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis. I truly hope Pablosecca's excellent reasoning will be accepted and there IS no more that needs be said. However, I deeply feel the "many sources" so many keep thumping on need to be addressed--it's an arguement that passes for the truth far too often, as very few (and I've been guilty of this) are inclined to slog through a deluge of links to examine their merit. This time I decided to slog through, and here's the skinny:

(apologies in advance for the length)

References (11--about 6 might be relevant)

Note: "Less notable/irrelevant" items are double-bulleted.

Ref 1. Med length article comprised mostly of the personal recollections of people from the subject's childhood hometown. Bio facts scant and redundant of other sources.

Ref 2. Link to the main page of the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. The only article which could be found on this domain was a exceedingly brief obituary--this does in fact establish the information cited, (who her husband was) but certainly not notability.

- Ref 3. Pay-to-view article. Subject's name does not even appear in the "teaser" excerpt.

- Ref 4. One of the "longer" articles; but likely all sourced from Ref 6. (down to the "matronly" comment).

Ref 5. Med-length biographical sketch--redundant facts.

Ref 6. Canadian Press reprint--poss. main source.

- Ref 7. Gives detail about the "last moments" of the French class before reciting biographical notes made redundant by sources above. (This is about the shooting, not Couture-Nowack).

- Ref 8. More details about the shooting of the French class. Fact it's cited to support (barricading the door with a desk) also cites Ref 7. Redundant. Barely mentions Couture-Nowack.

Ref 9. French class killings (redundant) with a brief roundup of Couture-Nowack bio at the end (all details redundant, save perhaps the mention of the NS Premier's condolences)

- Ref 10. AFP blurb reprinted in Yahoo! News. Canadian Prime Minister laments "a Canadian" being among the dead. He doesn't even mention Couture-Nowack by name. Very brief bio details are redundant by sources above.

Ref 11. Press Release from the NS Premier's office. Facts are redundant, but the Minister of Acadian Affairs' quote could be used to assert notability.

External (in-line citation) links (3, w/1 duplication. Zero directly relevant, i.e. "About" the subject)

- #1: NYTimes interactive maps of the shooting progression timeline. Couture-Nowack is mentioned once as the first to be killed in her classroom (graphic 12). No other details about subject.

- #2: French class survivor's story, already reported in Refs 7,8,9--barely mentions Couture-Nowack.

- #3: French class survivor blurb in "People" magazine--doesn't even mention Couture-Nowack's name.

- #4: See #2--duplicate link.

Further reading (11 links: 5 reference duplications, 1 pay-to-view, 1 ratings site. 11 - 7 = 4):

1. Comprised almost entirely of memorial quotations of family and friends--memories, emotions, subjective. Intersticed facts redundant.

- 2. Duplicate of Ref 7.

- 3. Duplicate of Ref 6.

- 4. Duplicate of Ref 4.

- 5. Reprint of CP article in Ref 9, but in French.

6. Exceedingly brief memorial/article. Memorial quotes. Anemic bio facts, redundant.

- 7. Another pay-to-view article. Content and merits/sources thereof inconclusive.

8. Coverage of the funeral, reprinted from AP--all memorial.

9. Redunant info, quotes culled from CP articles. In French.

- 10. Reprint of CP article from Ref 6, in French.

- 11. RateMyProfessors.com

In all, we're left with approximately 6 (unless one counts "Further Reading" as citations--then, about 10), not 20, possibly relevant sources--which can probably be honed down to about three CP or AP articles. Since someone's bound to argue "Just because they're reporting the same thing doesn't mean they're using the same source" or similar, I'll happily provide a point-by-point analysis of which sources (the ones that actually mention the subject) are likely the originals and what's drawn from them, where (on the article's talk page so as not to further clutter this forum).

Again, my apologies for the length.

Respectfully,

Wysdom 03:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - By examining only 6 of the published works written about this person (I was too tired to examine all 20) here's what's actually found about sources (links provided to editors can actually validate and judge for themselves). Of course, we can only know for sure which persons the reporters actually quoted as sources and anything that they wrote about the topic that wasn't attributed to one of these many sources can only be 100% speculation as to their orgins - ie it is impossible to know what their sources were for those un-attibuted reportings...

The NovaNewsNow article sourced co-classmate Bobby Lou Reardon and Boys and Girls Club worker Donna Barrett.
This ChronicleHearald article sourced Virginia Tech professor Lloyd Mapplebeck, friend Claire Russell, spokespeople Stephanie Rogers and Richard Landry and the widow Jerzy Nowak (all different sources from the previous published work)
The Washing Post article sourced former Nowak teacher and friend Heather Parker and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. (all different sources from the previous published works and unlike an editor's stipulation that Harper didn't mention Couture-Nowack by name, this Washington Post article reports "Harper made special mention of Couture-Nowak in a speech in Ottawa this week.")
The 1st CBC News article sourced Claire Russell and Jerzy Nowak (both sourced in one of the previous articles) plus Nova Scotia francophone school board spokesman Richard Landry, Nova Scotia Agricultural College Vice President Bernie MacDonald, acquaintance Kathy Mills-LoBella, former student DeAnne Leigh Pelchat and a few other un-named former students. (4 (possibly more since more were un-named) of the at least 6 sources are different from the previous published works)
The Toronto Star article sourced Virginia Tech French Department chair Richard Shryock, former students Amanda Bateman and Madigan Milford and Jerzy Nowak (the latter sources elsewhere). (3 of the 4 sources are different from the previous published works)
The Associated Press/Washington Post article quoted former student John Welch. (different from all the previous published works listed here)

So in just these 6 published works (I think most will agree that six is far passed the threshold of "multiple"), at least 17 sources were used and all of these published works used sources independent of the other 5. These certainly are "mulitple published works" that all sourced different people in their published works.
Maybe tomorrow I'll examine the other 14. Goodnight. --Oakshade 05:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if we can't find a reference to her in the news or in academia before she was killed, as it appears is the case. Calwatch 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as argued by Pablosecca. One does wish to be generous in cases like this but sentimentality is not a reason to keep an article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable. oh and stop afding people because of death, we really need Moratorium for cases like this where the notability is related to death, but not caused by death, amongst other reasons of taste and public decorum. --Buridan 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anything on "taste" in the WP guidelines, but thanks for the lecture... Medico80 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments on the original AfD. Thousands of people die every day, many of them in notable circumstances, but unless there's something particularly unusual about the victim, the article should be about the event and not the victim. There seem to be few if any reliable sources on her dating from before her death (sitting on the fence slightly here, as there may be more in the French language press); as I've said previously, WP:NOTPAPER isn't a carte blanche to create articles from every obituary in the paper, even if multiple obituaries are technically multiple independent sources — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is she not notable? She has her own page on the New York Times Online, as well, she is mentioned in great detail in the Canadian Press (even though it's not cited in the article. The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above delete arguments, particularly Pablosecca's. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pablo's analysis above, which is spot-on. Eusebeus 15:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after edits. There is some repetition of content, and the "Death" section is a bit too large—this should be edited. However, the article mentions the scholarships/bursaries, which is content not suitable anywhere else. Other than that, there is enough interesting and notable content unrelated to the massacre to make it worthy. (And no, I didn't voted "keep" for the other victims—just this article.) +mwtoews 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crime was notable, but the victims were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, like passengers on a crashed plane or a boat sinking. That some of them took obvious steps to save their and others lives, like holding the door shut to keep the shooter from coming back in, is not a notable event anymore than handing someone on sinking boat a life jasket or pressing the stewardess call button when you saw the airplane engine on fire would be. Some of the victims got multiple trivial mentions in news stories for a few days, which does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N. Edison 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But multiple non-trivial published works primarily about this person, not the other victims, does pass WP:BIO and WP:N as there are multiple published works that are not just "passing mentions." Nobody is saying she didn't become notable due to the shootings, but she became notable nonetheless. Notablity is not subjective. --Oakshade 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not incidental, either. All of the sources provided are incidental. --Core desat 05:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are focused in depth on the subject's life and work which are not incidental. Her notablity was inspried by an incident, but that doens't in any way make notability disappear. That's why notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seriously, I'm sure a lot of people think they voted delete, but now their votes aren't here because someone overturned the deletion for what I think weren't good reasons. It doesn't meet WP:PROF, she isn't notable, she's simply someone who died. I think this is a prime example of recentism and emotion, not NPOV. I don't think it should have been overturned, and I didn't know until I actually read this discussion again that I had to vote on this again as I thought the matter was settled. This annoys me because its likely to get a disproportionate number of people who voted to overturn here and not a lot of people who voted already who simply think the discussion is ongoing. Wikipedia is not a memorial, lest we forget, and is not the proper place for an obituary. Titanium Dragon 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, people above (Pablo) have pointed out probably better than I why she isn't notable; she is a no one who died in a massacre and all coverage of her is incidental. She wasn't and isn't important or notable. Titanium Dragon 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree with you in principle, but I find it inappropriate to refer to anybody, especially a rather nice person who recently died in tragic circumstances, as "no-one". PrinceGloria 22:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of this article clearly meets the essential Wikipedia guideline for notability - "subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." She's been the subject of articles in national newspapers of two countries and the article is already well documented using multiple excellent sources. Unfortunately, some of the opponents here seem to be appealing to elitism rather than following Wikipedia guidelines for notability. BRMo 02:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. There is a statement in WP:BIO that strongly discourages the use incidental sources for showing notability. --Core desat 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Only that most of the mulitiple published works about his person are not incidental. --Oakshade 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Coredesat noted, WP:BIO says, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." However, Oakshade correctly observes that Couture-Nowak has been the main subject of several published articles in reputable sources. These articles do not constitute trivial or incidental coverage. This article clearly meets the core notability guidelines in WP:N and WP:BIO. BRMo 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure/No vote yet - I want to see if she has completed any journals/studies regarding the French language. A part of me wants to keep this, but a part of me states not to. WhisperToMe 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO — Jonathan Bowen 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger Keep per WP:BIO --172.162.73.121 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't add anything to the reasons above, subject's entry is predicated on her status as the only Canadian victim of a high profile crime (see WP:MEMORIAL), as to her other attributes, clearly fails WP:PROF. No one here has provided any more evidence than has been sufficient to retain countless other deleted articles of similarly non-notable academics. fishhead64 06:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable in a specific country means the person is notable. Not giving coverage to someone because they're notable in a specific region and not the United States (or some other area of an editor's choosing) is exactly why the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias was created. --Oakshade 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue in question is not any "regional limitation", but the fact that there is little about the subject that would provide for her notability other than the media coverage, which was not induced by any personal achievements but rather nationality. PrinceGloria 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete to the list of victims. Per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, her tragic death is not grounds for notability, and Canadian media reports to get a share of the pathos cannot be used towards meeting WP:BIO. As I noted when I started the first AFD, the only possible grounds for notability I see is "was instrumental in establishing the École acadienne de Truro, the area's first French language public school", but more context is needed on how important this is. Given the fact that nobody seems to have reported this when it actually happened, it seems unlikely that this will help. - Banyan Tree 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEMORIAL does not apply as it refers to those who are not notable and wouldn't pass our guidelines as this person does. This isn't an article written about someone's grandpa who otherwise doesn't have multiple published works primarily about them and this person does. --Oakshade 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. For the second time, WP:MEMORIAL was a major part of the basis of the decision to disassociate http://sep11memories.org/wiki/In_Memoriam, the first Wikimedia project, from the Foundation. Once it started, the goals of the WMF and the Sept 11th site were found to be incompatible. Note that Septh 11th wiki was the place for bios of victims who weren't notable outside of the attacks, so even these weren't on Wikipedia. It took years for this decision to happen, so let's not reenact the entire torturous process, and go by precedent: people who receive attention solely because of their victimization (and whose articles are not also the only place on the wiki in which a notable crime is described) do not meet the notability threshold. - BanyanTree 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. This isn't about the 3000+ 9/11 victims. It's about this specific person who's the subject mulitple non-trivial published works. WP:MEMORIAL states: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The person passes WP:BIO so WP:MEMORIAL doens't apply. --Oakshade 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're ignoring the years-long discussion that got rid of the first sister project to make your argument here? In case you don't remember, in the aftermath of 9/11 every newspaper wrote features on victims with a connection to the local town/region/country, and it was eventually decided that these news items could not be used in establishing notability. - BanyanTree 01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As you seem to be employing a reverse-WP:POKEMON arguement (we deleted x, so we should delete y for the same reason) actually, there are quite a few of 9/11 victims who do have pages that appear to have far less in-depth published works written about them than Jocelyne Couture-Nowak does; Mario Luis Santoro, Edward P. Felt, Andrew Garcia, Richard Guadagno and Charles Edward Jones for examples (the latter was AfD'd and result was Keep). WP:BIO is about if a person is notable, not how. --Oakshade 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say most, if not all, of the articles you have mentioned should be deleted too, it is just that they somehow slipped by. As concerns WP:MEMORIAL, yes it does stipulate that the subject has to be notable (and I feel it is implied that the subject has to have "reasons for notability" beyond his or her death), and, according to WP:BIO, the available media coverage does not provide for the subject's notability in the Wikipedia sense (not to mention that it does not for sure in the common sense). PrinceGloria 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        According to WP:BIO, being the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources. This subject clearly passes that guideline. By common sense, someone who has received so much media attention, for any reason, is without question notable. --Oakshade 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've said this a few times already, but also according to WP:BIO, incidental sources are not enough. The sources mentioned in the article came in the wake of the shootings - that makes them incidental. --Core desat 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The coverage of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak in these mulitiple independant published works are in depth articles about her life and work which are not incidental. The articles were inspried by the shooting incident but that doesn't transform all the articles written about this person "incidental." --Oakshade 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oakshade just doesn't get it, and maybe never will, that "being the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources" is not always enough. I tried to spell out the reason why it's insufficient here in my post above, but, you can lead a horse to water... Pablosecca 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case "being the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources" is more than enough. The primary criterion of WP:NOTE reads as follows (bold and links not added by me but are included in the guideline page): "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.." If you choose to ignore our primary criterion because you don't like the reason the person is notable, you are free to do so but it is not in line with the core of our "notability" guidelines. --Oakshade 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You still continue to selectively quote your prefered part of the guideline while ignoring the main criteria, but I won't argue with you. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the primary criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. That's why they boldfaced it. As I've done throughout this AfD, I'm happy to discuss any sub-clause of any of the guidelines. --Oakshade 15:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. The only thing notable about her is that she happened to be in the tragically wrong place at the wrong time. Her only notability--how she died--can be adequately covered in the list of victims article. Calliopejen1 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she seems noteworthy even without VaTech, and most definitely with it!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Redirect to either the Virginia Tech massacre page or the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. If her work within Canada were notable, there would be multiple, reliable sources written about this work before she died. However, every source in the article was written after her death. This shows that she is notable for how she died, not for how she lived. All the relevant information about her death either is or should be in the main page or the list of victims page. There is no need for a separate page. --FreeKresge 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FreeKresge even says "she is notable" in his delete recommendation, following it with the important caveat "for how she died." If this article is deleted I'm going to wonder where we can find a list of things that make a person notable but should be ignored. Notable for killing = in, notable for being killed = out? Will we have another list including "notable for being rock star = in; notable for marrying rock star = out"? I thought that determining simply whether someone was notable was difficult enough without adding this second layer of interpretation. --Myke Cuthbert 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I can't claim to speak for FreeKresge, I think he was a bit loose in his words. It's not that "she is notable for how she died", but rather "her notability comes from how she died". I do not think she is notable, and I don't believe FreeKresge does either - what notability (note, having a level of notability does not make "notable") she does have is mostly by association with this event, and in this event her role was simply incidental - she just happened to be there, and the story would be no different if she just happened not to be in the building that day. Tejastheory 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with most of what Tejastheory said, particularly in the fact that there are levels of notability. I recognize that multiple sources have mentioned Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. However, these sources mentioned her for only one reason, and other Wikipedia articles already cover that reason. Therefore, this article is not necessary. It is common for topics notable just because they are associated with one thing to be merged into the article on that thing. For example, WP:MUSIC says that if a musician's only claim of notability is composing a theme song for a television show, the musician should just be redirected to that show's page. This is why I say that there should be a redirect. The rock star example is very relevant. WP:OUTCOMES says, "Family members of celebrities should generally be merged with the articles about celebrities themselves" so marrying a rock star would not merit a redirect, not a page of one's own. Finally, AFD decisions are not supposed to be easy. Easy decisions should be prodded.--FreeKresge 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now We do not want to be a repository of news stories. It is impossible to say for certain whether there will be lasting interest in this topic, as the event is only a couple of weeks old. However, my hunch is that there will be lasting interest, maybe in year-end retrospectives or on the anniversary of her death. Kla'quot 05:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per all above. Wikipedia is not a memorial. GreenJoe 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contents and redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Not notable prior to the incident, and shouldn't be notable just for being murdered. WWGB 06:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP When a Canadian is Mentioned at the time of their death in Parlement by the prime minister, it is a sign of their being notable, if the fact of her murder pushes her over the threshold of notability, so be it. This is a person who has contributed to society in more then one sphere, in more than one country. In the future it is likely that someone will be looking for this information, so it should be in the encyclopeadia. There are places for this to be linked in the articles about Nova Scotia schools also. cmacd 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no objection to articles about people of relatively minor notability being kept provided that there is sufficient sourcing about their lives, or part of their lives, that it is possible to have a balanced article. WIkipedia, after all, is not paper. When someone has become notable primarily because of their death, as is the case here, the problem is that the coverage of them becomes unduely positive, because no one speaks ill of the dead, esp. when the death is as tragic as in the case of Dr. C-N. In this case, I think, we have little choice but to delete, because a balanced article is impossible. semper fictilis 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several people have expressed their *personal* opinion on whether *they* think this person is notable. Those opinions are essentially worthless and irrelevant. The question is whether she's been found notable by *external* reliable sources. This is indicated by those sources writing about (.e.g. "noting") the subject non-trivial. This has been done. Whether she "earned" it, or had it while she was alive, or what the reasoning behind it, is not important. Please, leave you personal opinions at home, and follow the sources. For a long time, notability was used despite the complete lack of an agreed working definition. But, since we have an actuall working definition for it in WP:N, we aught to actually use it. Also, this "redirect to list" nonsense is utter rubbish., and violates WP:NOT. We're not a source of lists of people killed. If there wasn't sufficient non-trivial coverage, then nothing should exist under the article title, not even a redirect. Also, please read WP:MEMORIAL, before mentioning it. That's for people known just to family and friends. If people can just put aside their personal bias, and look and independent sources, and their coverage, this is pretty straightforward. We can not function effectively if if AFD is about subjective tests. That would mean, we delete articles based on whoever happens to show for AFD. --Rob 06:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for sharing with us, that your personal opinon is, that she is notable... Medico80 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for Rob I understand what you say, but the discussion for some of us is beyond the criterion for notability that you suggest, namely, that simply because a person is the primary subject of multiple sources, does not make them notable -- it's a subtle distinction which I think causes the confusion we see above. I have a post up above in which I describe this reasoning fully, but the gist is that there are times when people are covered for reasons not having to do with their own notability, when otherwise unremarkable people are focused-on, often by the group they represent (in Couture-Nowak's case French-Canadadian media etc), because of their unwilling participation in a notable event. I think that's the case here. Such coverage is properly termed "incidental", as WP:BIO clearly spells out.
  
  This is designed presumably to avoid victims' lists, and also to distance Wikipedia from the notion that notability is inherited, more or less speaking.
  
  Obviously we must put our personal opinions aside -- and I for one am making no judgment call on the appropriateness of various Canadian (and other) news sources taking Couture-Nowak's death as a subject. My thought, which many share, is that she, in and of herself, was not accomplished enough to be deemed notable -- and that strictly speaking the focus she's received post-VTech is incidental to that tragedy.
  
  Again, read my post way up above, in which I closely read WP:BIO.
  Of course, there are refinements on my reasoning. The entry for Megan Kanka comes to mind -- a poor girl who didn't live long enough to do anything notable, and who wouldn't have been in this encyclopedia were it not for the law inspired be her case, Megan's Law. Had an entry been written about Megan Kanka just by virtue of her death, it would probably have been unwarranted based on notability. Subsequent to the prominence of that legislation, she, being the sole victim, would have her notability raised.
  
  As it stands, I and many others have, thus far, seen no reason to single out Couture-Nowak for a separate article.
  I welcome your comments. Pablosecca 08:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentof course, if we are just talking whether she deserves a separate article or not, then we already agree she is notable. then the second article issue is just one of layout and whether this informaiton is better provided on the original page or not. I think that since it extents and improves on an agreed notable person from a single point of issue article to a richer article which covers more of her career, it should be separate. --Buridan 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment We can agree that she is notable -- but that doesn't mean she is the "correct kind" of notable, if you will. Some of us feel that her notability is totally incidental to the tragedy, and therefore not meritorious of a separate article. Pablosecca 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Where are you getting "we agree that she is notable" from? Being part of a notable incident doesn't confer notability. Every soldier killed in Iraq has received press coverage; however, we have an Iraq War article without the need for an article on every soldier — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Commentif the debate is whether she is included with information or not, then it is a debate on notability, if the debate is whether her information is in x article or y article, then you already agree on notability and must be debating something else. I suspect you are merely debating your own preferences and not much about policy at this point. your iraq war argument is a non-sequitor, it does not follow this example. I bet you do have articles from colonels and special cases that were notable, but were only added to wikipedia when their notability came to the attention of editors upon their publicized death. --Buridan 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't try to set up straw-man arguments - I'm certainly not saying (and I don't think any of the other delete voters are saying either) that she should be "included in x article instead of y", and if we did we could have redirected it without going through an AfD. I do not believe we should have any information other than her name, as with Dunblane massacre and Columbine High School massacre, and probably no list of victims at all, as with Omagh bombing — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Umm, no strawman there, just basic logic. either a or not a, and all that. you can't say she is not notable and then say she is notable enough to be elsewhere. either she is notable or not. cause of notability is moot. if you want her in, then the only question is how, then it isn't an afd matter at all cause the notability is established, it is merely administrative decision of editors for whatever expediency exists. if there is information not appropriate to another article, then the article stands alone but related to many articles, if it only relates to one article, then... it belongs on that article. just logic of the policies. ---Buridan 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Either a or not a" - that is the exact definition of a straw man! It is not a choice between "if she's notable then she gets her own article, if she's not notable then she doesn't deserve any mention at all". As explained elsewhere, there are different levels of notability, and then somewhere in that is Wikipedia's standard of notability. Most of the deletion voters have argued that she has notability - a low level of notability that is on the 'incidental' level, which is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standard for having an entire article dedicated to the subject. However, this does not mean she does not have significance which pertains specifically to a single event (i.e. the Virginia Tech shootings) - she does (arguable) and so mentioning her on some sort of list of victims would be appropriate. So yes, you certainly can "say she is not notable and then say she is notable enough to be elsewhere" Tejastheory 03:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment No, a straw man is when you make a claim such as, 'does not satisfy policy x' and then do not provide any reason or evidence. If you want to make an argument that there are many kinds of notability, just explain in detail your position, that is fine, the afd is about non-notability, and it looks like that argument has been given up on, as you says she is notable. Also note, that the article itself indicates significance beyond the greater event. See, as this is an encyclopedia, and if the information on the article is of encyclopedic value, the person is notable, and everything is cited... then it seems to me that the article is fine. why isn't it fine? be careful also with the issue of systematic bias, please. --Buridan 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment This is a straw man - you're misrepresenting the arguments for deletion. It has never, EVER been "she gets her own article, or she doesn't deserve any mention at all" - that is a position that you made up and attempted to present as the choice. I, nor any of the other delete arguments, NEVER said that she is notable for Wikipedia's standards. There are levels of notability. Heck, I've been covered in my city's newspaper once, and that gives me some level of notability. Is that a level of notability high enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about me? Hardly. You should also detail exactly what you mean by "the article indicates significance beyond the greater event" - do you mean there is more information about Couture-Nowak than can be included in the Virginia Tech article? I think as others have argued, not any of that other information is really significant. If she were in a list of victims, the only pertinent information may be that she was an instructor, and was killed. You should also explain what you mean by "systematic bias" before throwing that blind accusation out there. Tejastheory 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment systematic bias is that wikipedia tends to disregard humanities and social science notability much more than physical science notability, it tends to disregard significant social contributions such as the author of this article, in comparison to say a person that discovered the non prime roots of random large numbers can be resolved as constructs of primes.... (duh). that is one systematic bias, just like there is a systematic bias for effects by non u.s. citizens, where many contries are viewed more skeptically in these reviews because the reviewers of the afd are not willing nor ready to read french to find the notability. ok... that happens, we just need to be careful of it. This might be a case of that, I am not certain, but it is starting to seem it. systematc bias is when notable contributions arising from periphery situations are considered non-notable. --Buridan 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment now, above, at least 2 different people say this person is notable in this thread, and i'm not included. there is no strawman there, if she is notable enough for article x, why is she not notable enough for article y? --Buridan 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As said before, there are different levels of notability. Is the person notable enough that her name should be included in a list of victims? Yes, most people agree on that. That does NOT imply that she is notable enough to have her own article. You are presenting a "X or Y" argument: if she has any mention in wikipedia, she deserves a full article; if she does not have a full article, she does not deserve mention in wikipedia. And that is simply not the way Wikipedia works. Tejastheory 03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is good & too long to go anywhere else. Meets WP:BIO in my view. Johnbod 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BIO. Her work in Canada makes her notable apart from her death. GarryKosmos 03:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby repeat my vote from last time (if that's not allowed, please strike this through): Delete Unlike with the other professors, I've not seen anything saying that she was the writer of lots of impressive papers, or the author of any impressive books, or the recipient of any impressive awards. I think some of my college professors are really amazing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're notable, and even if she were amazingly good she's not thereby made noteworthy. And no, the cause of her death doesn't make her inherently notable either. Nyttend 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shareasale[edit]

Seems to be advertisement.
Created 20:14, 8 January 2007 by User:Brianlittleton
Later edited, mostly by him and User:Cumbrowski. (Cumbrowski signs himself "--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. ".)
Prodded at 20:39, 20 April 2007 by User:Jkelly with comment "No indication that this subject meets our inclusion criteria.".
Deleted at 21:33, 25 April 2007 by User:Anthony Appleyard as a routine time-expired prod with no objections in its talk page and no "{{hangon}}".
At 10:24, 27 April 2007 Cumbrowski asked me to undelete it, suspecting that the reason for deletion was his web site http://www.shareasale.com/ being temporarily down.
At 15:54, 27 April 2007 Anthony Appleyard restored Shareasale, and then AfD'ed it to get this sorted out properly.
--- I commented out the prod tag to avoid confusion while this AfD ran.
Anthony Appleyard 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ShareASale is among the largest affiliate networks in the United States. Linkshare, Commission Junction and Performics are what is referred to as "the big three" affiliate networks in the US, but "big" does not necessarily mean that those networks generate the most revenue or have the most merchants. Each of the three is owned by a large and well known company and got a lot of press because of their acquistions (Linkshare -> Rakuten, Commission Junction -> ValueClick, Performics -> DoubleClick. See references for each of the three networks). Surveys and other sources indicate that the networks that are mentioned right after the "big three", namely "Clickbank", "ShareASale" and "MyAffiliateProgram (Kolimbo.com)" actually seem to have more Merchants using them, than some of the "Big Three". The AffStat Report 2007 [51] shows for example for ShareASale a market share of 18% for programs that use the revenue share compensation method, putting it right after Commission Junction (29%), but before Linkshare (8%) and Performics (2%). The AffStat Report is showing only the number of advertisers and not the amount of business that is being generated through the networks. If you look at the list of Advertisers using ShareASale [52] (2,239 advertisers/merchants) versus the statement at the Linkshare site [53] (over 600 merchants) you can see that ShareASale has almost 4 times as much advertisers than Linkshare. However, if you look at who the advertisers are, you will see, that Linkshare has a lot of "big brands" as their customers versus ShareASale that is targeted towards small and mid size companies and brands. Technorati shows over 450 posts that are tagged ShareASale. On the same page can you also find videos and pictures that reference to the ShareASale affiliate network. [54] --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this is sufficient proof for WP:N. I would also like to note, that I am not involved in any business with ShareASale, except for using it as an Affiliate, like I do with pretty much all larger affiliate networks. I also edited most articles to affiliate networks and even started the ones for Linkshare and Performics. I also state this on my user page, where you can also find additional information about me and my activities at Wikipedia. User:Cumbrowski. I mention this to demonstrate that WP:COI does not apply to me, what could be seen differently based on the simple fact that Anthony mentioned me as being one of the editors who contributed the most to the article and that I requested to undelete it and to start an AfD debate, which should have happened even prior the first deletion without notice or warning --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional supporting material.

ShareAsale Booth at Affiliate Summit (Video) - Shows that we deal with a WP:CORP here.
ShareASale is the only larger affiliate network in the US that prohibits affiliates to use any kind of desktop application to demonstrates its strong stance against abuse and fraud by Adware and Parasiteware, which are still a big problem today and not only harm advertisers and other affiliates, but also normal users, which contributes to the bad reputation affiliate marketing has to some degree. See ShareASale's Affiliate Agreement, Quote: "NOT ALLOWED: Any placement of creative in a "Desktop" advertising scheme. This includes any and all 3rd party advertising platforms that use a desktop application to display ads in any form.". This is important, because it explains the following recognitions of ShareASale and specifically its founder and CEO Brian Littleton.

AFP Fair Practice Award - August 2006 by AffiliateFairPlay (this one is also referenced in the article)

Coverage at the Revenue Today Blog, the largest print magazine of the affiliate marketing industry
Coverage in Real Deal from 08/24/2006 the offical Newsletter of Affiliate Summit

Winner of the Affiliate Summit Pinnacle Awards for "Affiliate Marketing Advocate" at Affiliate Summit West 2007 01/2007 announced during the "Pure Imagination party" at the Wynn Hotel and Resort

Coverage by Wayne Porter (W.Porter is winner of the first Affiliate Summit Legend Award which was renamed after him and is now called the "Wayne Porter Legend Award".
Video of the Awards Ceremony

Social engagement. Fundraising campaign for "Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southern Nevada" where over $20,000 were raised by affiliate marketers. $5,000 of that was contributed by ShareASale.

Voted "Best Affiliate Network" for two years in a row (2005 & 2006) by the members of ABestWeb.com, the largest US forum for affiliate marketing

Best Affiliate Network '05
Best Affiliate Network '06

I hope this helps too. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to mention that I was always encouraging others in the industry (affiliate marketing industry as well as the search marketing industry (SEO)) to start to contribute to Wikipedia. There are numerous blog posts I did at ReveNews.com and SearchEngineJournal.com and comments I made on other blogs that attribute to that. I realized that Brian Littleton created the article about ShareASale (something that was on my to-do list) and I responded to him to stop it, because of COI and that I will go over the article to make sure that the information are accurate and that the article does not turns into a sales brochure. The Network plays an active role in the fight against Adware and other unethical business practices in the affiliate marketing industry, which gives the industry a bad name. I was inclined to add too much of that to the article, because it would unbalance the article and make the company look like a non-profit or something like that. ShareASale is certainly not that. I talked with Brian in person for the first time this Wednesday in San Francisco at Ad:Tech. We kind of met before in January, but did not really talk to each other. In the 5 years I am using the SAS network did I exchange with him only a handfull non-personal emails. That's it, there is nothing else to add, unless you want me to into greater details to any of the points made. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate the reach of the site, here some stats that are highly inaccurate, but are enough to make a point.

ShareASale.com Alexa Traffic Rank: 1,019 [55] and compared to the other networks (over the last 5 years) [56] - Agenda: ShareASale.com, CJ.com, Linkshare.com, Performics.com, Clickbank.com. Alexa numbers are Unscientific and hopelessly skewed stats, because of the audience. However, in this case is the Alexa audience the same as for the site in question, internet marketers and tech savvy geeks.
Compete SnapShot (People) ShareASale.com (1,182,637) compared to CJ.com (430,916) and Linkshare.com (36,778) [57]
QuantCast Rank for ShareASale (1,281), Estimated unique monthly visitors: 1.2 million[58]

--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I improved a bit on the article, content, references and structure. Just FYI. I did not add the users choice awards (ABestWeb), because that would be promotional, but I added the pinnacle award. I created a separate paragraph to the Company's active role in combating the Adware problem, which is an issue that hurts not only people, but also reflects poorly on the affiliate marketing industry. I think a company's active role in "cleaning up" its own industry is relevant, especially if it is something that affects peope that are not involved with that industry at all. What is your thought on this? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like advertisement to me. Anthony Appleyard 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate what exactly is not encyclopedic in your opinion. Also feel free to rephrase any sentences, where you think that the choice of words was not the best. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an advertisement to me. Created and almost entirely edited by Conflict Of Interest editors. Notability not established. Dimitrii 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evisceration a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eviscerated Zombie Tampon[edit]

Unreferenced and does not meet the criteria set in WP:MUSIC. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sure, and possible speedy under A7. This article doesn't evey TRY to assert notability. The page is riddled with red links, their only "album" was just their music burned to a CD-r. The band isn't even really serious. They just got random people in the band, regardless if they can play an instrument or not, and never practice. Definitely NN --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree it merits consideration for WP:CSD#A7. Even if not speediable, still decidedly NN. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:03, 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 but stubbify. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult classic[edit]

Delete - similar to the deleted list of cult films as well as the deleted categories for cult films and cult television shows. This is a solid mass of POV-laden original research. Otto4711 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's see here...first of all, this could be impossible to maintain as time goes by, who defines the movie as "cult classic"? Sure there is general concensus on certain movies being a "cult classic" but what would be the criteria for inclusion? This fails WP:OR and WP:NOT horribly. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This article does reek of OR, but it could be completely retooled from scratch, with a strict inclusion criterion. For example, if each item were cited as being referred to as a "cult classic" in a reliable source, then it could be included. Perhaps. But as it stands, and will stand without massive rewriting, the article is deletable, unencyclopedic listcruft. But, on the other hand, if one were to just go through, and delete all of the items, and include a small handful that had multiple sources, what would that look like? -Seidenstud 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to a hopefully well-constructed article on Cult fiction which as I have already suggested, should be cleaned up. However, this term is just a descriptor, and I don't see that it's enough of a different concept to warrant its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term deserves to be kept for definition, even if the list does not. Ibanix 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definitions do not belong on WIkipedia, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Otto4711 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But ditch the list of cult classics. There is no way that that list can every be verified. However, the phenomenon is real, and a very encyclopedic idea, and should be kept. -Running On Brains 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: maybe making a category for cult classics or cult films, cult books and so on (since there also is a category for cult science fiction films) might help to get rid of this list. --Tinctorius 11:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto what Brains said. The list is a pov nightmare that must be removed, but the article itself seems pretty reasonable from a npov standpoint, something to build on at least. --Bongwarrior 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Casts its net too wide and so sprawls across too many unrelated genres. This also makes it overlap with good articles on more specifc genres like Cult TV. Colonel Warden 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a list of loosely related topics. If the list is deleted, what is left apart from slightly more than a dictionary definition. Crazysuit 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, massive unsourced POV, I can't even tell what this article is about. Axem Titanium 03:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per brains and tinctorius; the notion of a "cult classic" is sufficiently complex a subject that a good encyclopedia article could certainly be written about it, but the list-content needs to go. - Orphic 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Keep article, get rid of list. Poetic^X_contribs 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as above - a "cult classic" is a social phenomenon, and this article can be more than a dictionary definition. This is a topic worthy of keeping - but definitely the ton of listcruft must be deleted from the article. Keeping as a spot to "branch-out" is nice too. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 04:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article is not only unsourced, it is unverifiable - it can not be sourced because there are no sources to corroborate the statements. Quite simply, it is comprised solely of original research and is therefore unsuitable for inclusion. Picaroon (Talk) 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult radio[edit]

Delete - unsourced indiscriminate list full of POV and OR. Otto4711 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to agree with you on this. Basically just a short paragrah, and a list of supposed cult radio programs. Looks like total Original Research to me. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say redirect somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Cult fiction won't work since radio isn't always fiction. This applies to Cult television as well. So delete, and hopefully find a place to redirect it, or rewrite from sources. FrozenPurpleCube 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't show any discernible way to limit entries and has no sources. It is very difficult to label cult items (including films, books, and radio shows), so perhaps it is best not to have a page on this subject. --Nehrams2020 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Brevity is not a problem. The list needs work but seems a good start. Tests for inclusion might include the existence of a fan club and media references to the show as a cult. Colonel Warden 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cult following, the concept probably exists, it just doesn't need its own page. Axem Titanium 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult television[edit]

Delete - unsourced indiscriminate collection of information relying entirely on POV and OR. Otto4711 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely WP:POV and WP:OR issues. What is the criteria for inclusion? Also, fails WP:NOT --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --R e m i 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite from sources is the best I can say, and I imagine that would just be as well done with a blank article as not. Maybe redirect to cult fiction though it's possible some cult television programs aren't fiction. FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the list of programs might be worth deleting. Sources should also be found to justify the intro. matturn 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The concept is well-established and the narrative seems fine. The list needs work though as shows like Scrubs seem to be mainstream rather than cult. Leave the article and work on the list. Colonel Warden 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nick. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see[edit]

I've read it and I can't make much use out of it, also it seems to be a sort of dictionary entry. Retiono Virginian 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it had some context, and looked proper at the first look. Sorry, I am having a bad week. Retiono Virginian 16:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult fiction[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list with no objective criteria for inclusion, relying on POV and OR. There is a "bibliography" but nowhere in the article is it indicated that any of the information in the article comes from an item on the bibliography or from any other reliable source. Otto4711 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:POV --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --R e m i 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix or cleanup. There's actually a book [59] on this subject, not to mention lots of scholar hits [60] so I accept that there's enough to make a good article here. FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phenomenon is real enough, but ditch the list of examples, unless of course there are reliable sources for all of them. -Running On Brains 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Shirahadasha 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult computer and video games[edit]

Delete - another mass of POV and OR. Otto4711 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to the nth degree What kind of crap is this? This is fails WP:POV so horrible it's patheic. I like how under "notoriously bad games" they have 2 games listed. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --R e m i 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a section in cult fiction as I'm pretty sure most games are works of fiction. Should obviously be part of that article when it's rewritten. FrozenPurpleCube 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete - Oh my poor brain. WP:NPOV, and more possibly, WP:COPYVIO of the 2 sources as well. DarkSaber2k 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the article is not good, but I believe the topic deserves an article and could be sourced easily. (For instance, it's hard to find a source about Katamari Damacy that doesn't use the word cult!) This article may or may not be a start for that. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / rewrite Would be a shame to lose this one. Its certainly interesting, and could be sourced easily i'm sure. Bjrobinson 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, which is a shame since I'm noticing that there's a lot of good material here. The problem is that the material is all original research. Though I agree that the games are all cult hits, the topic as a whole needs a lot more sourcing. While I've got no doubts that the individual items on this could be sourced in list format, the definitions mean the article is O.R. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rename to "cult video game"~~, while the article may make claims about the cult status of certain games, that's not a reason to delete. It simply defines shared characteristics of cult games in the same way that cult film does. I would like it if it didn't become a listcrufty mess though, but that's in the future. Axem Titanium 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, merge to cult following. Better idea. Axem Titanium 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult figure[edit]

Delete - unsourced and indiscriminate collection of POV-ridden and OR-afflicted lists. Otto4711 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --R e m i 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source and purge of laundry lists. The subject of "cult firgures" or "cult icons" is reasonable enough since many people are described as such in scholarly works [61]. It's the title of books [62]and news stories [63]. Specifically this book is about the subject [64] Tag this one for clean-up and better sources. FrozenPurpleCube 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs work yes, but the term is verifiable, scholarly, academic and thus certainly in my view, encyclopedic. Needs a thorough cleanup however. Jhamez84 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult following[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate listing of things that, in the unsourced opinion of whoever lists them, belong. No objective definition in the article, no objective inclusion criteria. Has been tagged for sourcing for months. Otto4711 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --R e m i 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some cleanup may be called for, but it's nonetheless a notable enough topic to have its own article. --Redeagle688 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been in place since October 2004 and in all that time not a single source has been added. If anyone was going to "clean it up" it probably would have happened by now. Otto4711 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this [65] is a book about the subject. Remove the laundry lists though. Other cleanup as necessary. And yes, I know that may be unlikely to happen, and it's quite possible that the whole thing would be better rewritten from scratch. FrozenPurpleCube 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. Arguing that an article needs editing has nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate factors that should play a role in deletion debates. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the argument is that the article violates WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:NPOV because it is indiscriminate and has no objective standard for inclusion. Otto4711 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic is notable enough to be on the Wikipedia.
Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law, a subject of morality?[edit]

Disputed prod. Article appears to be an essay of some kind, and thus not an encyclopedic topic. Delete and merge any salvageable content into law, ethics, etc. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. – Riana _ऋ 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. DarkAudit 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a term paper, sourced but still an essay. Plus I don't think encyclopedia articles titles should end in question marks. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Its definitely OR. --soum (0_o) 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a title like that one must suspect an essay. Reading the article verifies this suspicion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR violation. Acalamari 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Transwiki - To Wikiversity --R e m i 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article, nor is the title that of an encyclopedia article. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably there is an encyclopedic topic around here somewhere but the title is awful and the essay is obviously OR. --Richard 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyright infringement: RSA Security CryptoBytes Vol3, #1 ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/cryptobytes/crypto3n1.pdf WP:CSD#G12 —dgies^t_c 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive security[edit]

The more the author adds to this page, the more it becomes promotional. The text of this article now mimics the link it cites at the bottom. Fcsuper 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Besides appearing promotional, the link shows that the majority of the article is COPYVIO. -Seidenstud 17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with above. I don't think it's blatantly ad-like for speedy, but it seems that's the purpose of the page in any event. In a completely unencyclopedic tone nonetheless. Someguy1221 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki - Keep and add applicable article improvement templates, or transwiki to Wikibooks as a stub. --R e m i 12:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - The arcticle has been updated and reviewed once again. 17:08, 27 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.25.124.146 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Appears to be a legitimate topic but article is unabashedly promotional and may be copyvio (unless the author is one of the authors of the linked paper?). May be best to start over from a clean slate.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Szymanski[edit]

Personal biography for apparently non notable person created after a bureaucrat refused a rename on the basis that the editor's userpage was being used for personal publicity. Although it appears he has done some training with the US Space Academy and other Astronaut training institutions, it does not appear that he is involved in any space programmes beyond this. No google hits that I can see relate to this individual. WjBscribe 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Delete per WP:AUTO, WP:COI. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, this page was to be utilized to not promote my cause, but simply for an ease in access of credibility for public speaking. Nothing contained within this publication is fabricated. No accolades were desired either. This biography was simply created for me and I posted it along with the picture for refferance. Yes, another party should have uploaded this profile to avoid any problems. I did not vandalize any others work and I apologize for ill regards.

Brian Szymanski (Space Education Specialist)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masterbrian1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 April 2007.

Despite violating guidelines on autobiographies and thus also conflict of interest, this appears to be a good faith effort to improve the project, albeit with an apparently nonnotable article topic. The violations and notability issue strongly suggest delete, but given it is a good faith autobiography, perhaps userfy is an even better idea. If the subject does ever does become notable enough for the project, he could improve the article and discuss legitimate ways to return it to article space. I do acknowledge, however, that a legitimate objection to userfying, based on the author's explanation, would be that WP is not a webspace provider. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from main article space (no position on user space). No assertion of notability; and the author also appears to misunderstand the concept of "verifiability". Just saying you have verified facts in an article does not satisfy the test; information that is to be included in Wikipedia must be supported by other published sources. --Russ (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to a suggestion on any way that will maintain this profile page without violating any provisions, guidelines, etc. I strive for professionalism and will respect your position fully. Thank you in adavnce for your great assistance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masterbrian1 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2007.

Delete per WP:COI and WP:AUTO. This belongs on a personal site like myspace, not here. meshach 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is one of a number of renaming requests we've rejected as they are using their userpages for publicity - they want their usernames to be their real names so that their promo page has high google rankings. As they were rejected for renaming they've stuck their advert in the encyclopedia space so that it gets those all important hits when someone searches for their name. Sticking this stuff in userspace doesn't get round our notability criteria. We are currently getting 5+ vanity renaming entries a week like this. I don't know how many vanity entries we have in userspace who get their name right first time. Secretlondon 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:COI does not help. Request that the author/subject read WP:AUTO and WP:USER, and not apply them generously to himself. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:AUTO, WP:COI. If you want a page about yourself, wait until you're so famous that people you don't know are making it already. The Wednesday Island 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; nn auto coi self promotion; do not userfy. -- Infrogmation 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this AFD early as the views above are very clear and immediate and the 'article' is clearly in violatino of the principles of Wikipedia. We are not a promotions service of any form. ==AlisonW 23:04, 28 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Nichols[edit]

Non-notable as per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC; no references given. Closenplay 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he's so "famous", why are there no sources whatsoever about him? YechielMan 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Dan is a wonderful musician who has touched a number of Jewish Teens and that's all that matters. JStein

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psuedo Islamist[edit]

Obvious and unavoidable failure of WP:NPOV. Prod removed by anonymous user. JuJube 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to improve it plz change the name of article to Modern reformers in Islam

Shabiha 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)shabiha[reply]

- The thrust of the article seems to be that Sufism is the only peaceful median of Islam. As I said, that fails WP:NPOV. JuJube 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay advancing an argument (and thus not being neutral and being original research into the bargain). This is something which a blog is suitable for. Additionally, there's a lack of context in large chunks of this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plz change/modify it in Modern Reformers in Islam . I am Deleting Sufism Influence on article Shabiha 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)shabiha[reply]

- That's a positive step, but I'm not sure it will help. It's still more of an essay than an article, even with that section removed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as varieties of Islam are worthwhile in encyclopedia articles. --172.162.73.121 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.162.73.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See Sufism and Islamic fundamentalism, the two varieties of Islam under discussion in this article. Both have articles already. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is from an anonymous user with a shifting IP who has trolled various other AfD's, so I've stricken it. JuJube 06:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear JUJUBE i request You to Change the Name of Article in to Moden Islamic Reform Movement .This will help and will also be more relevant.

Shabiha 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Shabiha[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR--Sefringle 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a POV fork of Islamism.Proabivouac 03:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I Can Change the Name into above said Shabiha 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)shabiha[reply]

- There should be a tab at the top of the article which says "Move". That said, I wouldn't go moving the article until after the AfD is over, just to make the job of any admin easier. I'm also not convinced that changing the title alone will help. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename to list of landmarks in Chicago. Also needs cleanup and referencing, per the concerns of several editors here. --bainer (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks of Chicago[edit]

Delete and redirect. Fails WP:OR. All proper info is ad Chicago Landmark. This page constitutes a page of buildings people like (fails WP:ILIKEIT). They are not "official" landmarks like those at Chicago Landmark. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Or perhaps transwiki. Seems to me that making it conform to Wikipedia:List_guideline, and moving it to List of Landmarks in Chicago would be prudent and the best option. --R e m i 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chicago Landmark has a specific meaning and the buildings on this list are not the designated Chicago Landmarks. This is just a partial listing of buildings and things that someone has decided to call "landmarks." The list is cribbed from the linked website and is incomplete. The article includes a section on "future landmarks" which is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. A complete list of the officially designated landmarks exists at Chicago Landmark. Otto4711 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to e.g. List of notable buildings and structures in Chicago or similar. There are numerous notable structures in any city that will not be eligible for designation as an historic landmark, but there's no reason we can't organize a list of them. There is a difference between a "landmark" and a "Landmark". --Dhartung | Talk 02:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of pointless in this instance to duplicate Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago in list form. I know the one doesn't automatically negate the other but in this instance the cat is far superior. Otto4711 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename notable concept and could be an encyclopediac list. Should be renamed List of landmarks in Chicago--Sefringle 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "landmark" has a specific meaning in the context of Chicago, as found in the article Chicago Landmark. Maintaining this list, especially under a name that includes the word "landmark" in the title, engenders confusion with the actual "Chicago Landmarks." There is no purpose in duplicating the extensive categorization system of Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago with a list article which will also be confusing. Otto4711 00:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete topic is better handled by Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago. If someone wants to make a List of notable buildings in Chicago that is not redundant to the category they should feel free, but this page isn't it. Eluchil404 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Trehy[edit]

Verifiability and notability problems. Vanity? `'mikka 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, only 700 ghits. Article was written by a WP:SPA. YechielMan 21:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Voice (Canada)[edit]

Publication is not notable -- see AfD talk page for details of attempts to find any shred of notability. A. B. ^(talk) 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. Using LexisNexis I found a 2004 "community editorial" in a Newfoundland newspaper, replying to an article in "The Workers' Voice Magazine", presumably the publication in question. But I couldn't find anything about the magazine itself. EALacey 19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no evidence of notability. A quarterly publication schedule also suggests that it's not the most active of magazines. Warofdreams talk 14:46, 30 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 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd Linguistics: Rugby[edit]

A page full of unsourced and unreferenced slang created as a response to this successful AfD. Prod removed by author. JuJube 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UT

Look this is getting ridiculous you can check any of these words on the internet they are not false, so what if it is not referenced! I was told if i retitled it and added more information then it would stay at the end of the last AfD! There is no reason why this cannot be on wikipedia! Check these words yourself before syaing it is false! Headsworth 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even when that information is true and attributable to reliable sources. In the last AFD, I told you It wasn't your fault that it was misnamed, it was the fault of the person who made that request. Nevertheless, while we appreciate your efforts to fulfill that request, editors here are arguing that the topic is not needed. In many cases it is permissible to create a stub article for a notable topic that may grow in time, but in this case we probably don't need a local slang directory pertaining to a specific sport. Other editors did suggest a rename if the article were kept. The name was not a reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being unsourced, and thus original research. If sources are provided, the question will then become one of the encyclopedic nature of the topic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someguy1221 23:50, 28 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 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial games[edit]

Most of the information in the article is unsourced. Contains 3 sources despite naming 100+ games. "Controversial" is a poorly-defined weasel word. Fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable. Chardish 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reconsidering vote per below. JuJube 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do not salt; there could conceivably be a good, well-sourced article at this title, but this isn't it. *** Crotalus *** 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly strong keep, because this list is convenient, helpful, addresses an encyclopedic and relavent topic. If anything it should be expanded and more references added, which is likely to happen over time. No legitimate reason to delete. Best, --24.154.173.243 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no objective definition of "controversial" (fails WP:POV) and this list is indiscriminate (fails WP:NOT). Otto4711 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any article that contains a section called: "Video Games that Depict or Reference Urination" is... I'm laughing too much to finish my sentence. Croxley 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite KEEP - There is clear definition of "controversial" (succeeds WP:POV)in that the games have generated controversat nd more references will show that (yet, another jump the gun deletionist WTF) and this list is well argued nd NOT indiscriminate (does not fail WP:NOT) as reasons are given for each game. Cheers! --Horace Horatius 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) — Horace Horatius is a blocked user; see user page.[reply]
- WP:POV is an essay, and is far from widespread acceptance, let alone policy. It's very very difficult to classify items in a list based on a POV term like "controversial". The term is ill-defined: Final Fantasy IX is a controversial game? Knights of the Old Republic? The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?- Chardish 19:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I highlight two words from your comment: "more references." If every item on the list—or that remains on the list after a purge—has a reference to media coverage of a significant protest, then a case can be made that the game is notably controversial. That's a big if, though. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because reasons listed bove. I brainstormed and couldn't come up with a legitimate or smart reason for deletion in this case. I could only see someone wanting to delete it if they have a malicious agenda . . . --172.133.4.245 14:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.133.4.425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because controversatwith games, especially video games is a hot topic. Fools tried to link it to the Virginia Tech fiasco even (Cho's suiet mate told Chris Matthews that Cho didn't play video games)! But because of controversial subject matter with games like The Guy Game and its legal history of having a minor nude or Thrill Kill not being released for violence and so definitely makes a list of this nature valuable in a historical, cultural, nd media sense. --63.3.1.1 20:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be a hot topic, but it's poorly defined and a POV term. See WP:LISTS#Lists_content - Avoid creating lists based on a value judgment or opinions of people or organizations. For example, "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgments even if these can pass the test of verifiability. "Controversial" certainly falls into the bove category of "value judgments". - Chardish 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then, why not just request that the games listed each have a reference that shows where someone considered them controversial nd/or rename the fantastic article List of games considered controversial to have some fun alliteration and indicate that what's controversial to one is not to others. If nothing else, I cannot see how anyone wouldn't find urination or spanking controversial content for video games! --63.3.1.1 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, my opinion as to what "controversial content" is doesn't matter. Neither does yours, or anyone else's who edits Wikipedia. The point is that there is no objective description of what "controversial content" in video games is. Video games notable for negative reception is a good topic for an article because it makes two assertions: notability, which can be verified through the standards in place at WP:N, and negative reception, which is a well-defined and unambiguous term. Your suggestion that we say "what's controversial to one is not to others" is fallacious; neutrality is objective, and only what is objectively considered controversial should be included in the encyclopedia. Please read the Wikipedia policy on neutrality. And, on a lighter note, what is a controversy, anyway? - Chardish 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but few can reasonably deny that there ARE controversies with some games and whether or not we agree with the controvsery or how it's defined, the media, lawyers, groups, etc. see controversies and these imagined controversies have a historic nd media relevance as suggested bove. If encyclopedias are convenient reference tools, having a list like this is a useful guide for people to read about the items and then go to their main pages to see what the fuss was in each instance. We shouldn't deny researchers such convenience when data space is hardly an issue for Wikipedia. Give the article more time to improve as it is definitely relevant and worth keeping as myself and others obviously believe. --24.154.173.243 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than Horace Horatius, all keep votes are from anons. JuJube 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? We are all anons with vastly different edit histories, i.e. different people, and are making articulate arguments. Not everyone has a need to make an account, especially those of us who use multiple computers. --63.3.1.1 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this is not the proper forum to debate why you should or should not create an account, it should be noted that anonymous votes are frequently ignored by closing admins. JuJube 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous when those trying to delete the article are members of some kind of agenda group out to diminish Wikipedia by deleting other editors' hard work. --63.3.1.1 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like that aren't going to help your case. JuJube 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are your irrational arguments. --63.3.1.1 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and 172.133.4.245 have theorized that those who vote to delete have some kind of "agenda." Please assume good faith and realize that we are trying to better the encyclopedia; deleting content that violates Wikipedia policy is just as important of a task as adding new content that adheres to Wikipedia policy. Also remember that there is no cabal. Addendum: one of the reasons that the arguments of anonymous IP addresses do not carry as much weight is because it is perceived that they are new to the project. As such, the perception is that they do not have the sound understanding of Wikipedia policy needed to participate in AfD discussions. Again, this is a matter of perception - but it is very much to your advantage to register an account and participate in the community if you want your arguments here to carry more weight. - Chardish 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a member of some group whose stated goal is to delete articles. So, what y'alljust lurk on the deletion debates to overwhelm people before they can make their cases? An article such as this one has a clear reason to exist and yet if groups exist whose sole purpose is to delete articles allows for violations of POINT and OWN. Instead of actually considering individual articles' merits, how can we take people seriously who are on an admitted deletionist rampage? --63.3.1.1 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is clear. What constitutes "controversial" is a matter of opinion. Your "reasoning" consists of WP:ILIKEIT. JuJube 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least I have reasoning. If you want to compromise, then rename the article List of games considered controversial as suggested above and improve it. Totally axeing it is ludicrous and unfair. --63.3.1.1 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name to "List of games considered controversial" would do nothing but add a weasel word to the title. - Chardish 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then just keep the article as titled and include a sentence noting that what is controversial to some is not to others. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, yada yada, yada. --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But lists based on a POV judgment are not allowed. There's a reason there's no article called List of terrorists, with or without a disclaimer sentence. - Chardish 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism and inclusionism are not blanket philosophies that everything should be deleted or everything should be included. (Otherwise, what would be the point of participating in AfD?) At the risk of trivializing a complicated and long-running debate, inclusionists believe that poor articles should be kept and improved; deletionists believe that poor articles should be deleted. The inclusionist argument is that someone might improve the article someday. The deletionist counter-argument is that the inclusion of poor content hurts Wikipedia as a whole, and that deleted content can be easily re-added as soon as its quality has been improved and/or its appropriateness for Wikipedia included. Also, I would advise you to avoid attacking the motives of participants in this discussion; such behavior could be percieved as personal attacks. - Chardish 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from harassing fellow editors who appear to make valid points. --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anything I've done here could be construed as harassment. "Valid points" is subjective - harassment is not. On the contrary, I've tried to be very accepting and including of the new users - primarily my recommendations that you guys register accounts and thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. - Chardish 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't accuse those who disagree with you of personal attacks. That's a bit paranoid. I'd also suggest you avoid using the word "very," as style guides on how to write denounce this word as overused and ineffective. I just think you should work on improving articles, rather than destroying them. And just seems, well, friendlier. And plus, the deletionist thing seems kind of defeatest, like a give up, quitting attitude. Be more optimistic! :) --63.3.1.1 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that attacking motives could be perceived as personal attacks - I didn't accuse anyone of making personal attacks, as I'm really trying to be civil here (and my first rule of WP:CIVIL is that accusing someone of violating it is, in fact, uncivil.) And we deletionist types are friendly people, too. We just have high standards! : ) - Chardish 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the other anonymous has reworded some of the text. Give this article a shot to be revised as it seems entirely possible. Even one of the few who voted for deletion above said similar "there could conceivably be a good, well-sourced article at this title" and so just add some kind of improvement tags instead. No real justification to delete. --172.150.213.178 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additions to the article simply add weasel-word disqualifiers from verifiability, which cannot be in the encyclopedia per policy. - Chardish 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article and if I get chance, I'll add some more references. I like the new addition too as it really showcases and follows cleae encyclopedic policy. --24.154.173.243 14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset). Now that he brings it up, Mr. Anony has a valid point. There exists an article called Films considered the greatest ever. If that can survive, there is a valid reason to keep an article called "List of games considered controversial". JuJube 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reconsideration and by the way, I noticed on your user page that you have recent health issues. Anyway, although I may disagree with other editors here and there (I hate the deletionist cruft, but don't wish ill on the actual people), so I sincerely do hope that your health improves or works out. Best, --63.3.1.1 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, because I've yet to see non-suspicious reason not to. The reasons to delete seem to be using, if I may paraphrase our President, "fuzzy logic." --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.150.213.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
SPEEDY KEEP, because this relevant article meets Wikipedia's guidelines and standards to a T. --164.107.223.217 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)<[reply]
- Perhaps you might want to brush up on your understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and standards - this discussion is not a candidate for speedy keep. - Chardish 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I checked and this is an obvious speedy keep. Take care. --164.107.223.217 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's see, there are four possible criteria for speedy keep, one of which must be met. 1) No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. Crotalus, Otto4771, Croxley, and (sort of) JuJube all recommend deletion. Strike that one... 2) The nomination is unquestionably vandalism or disruption. Again, that can hardly be the case, as legitimate arguments have been raised supporting deletion... 3) The nominator is banned. I'm the nominator, and I'm not banned. 4) The page is a policy or guideline. Which it isn't. Would you explain how, then, this is an "obvious speedy keep," and what page you checked that gave you that impression? - Chardish 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - JuJube is reconsidering his/her vote and after reading what others wrote, you appear to be part of a group whose stated objective is to delete Wikipedia articles. Isn't that a disruptive policy? But for what it's worth, I'm taking a break from Wikipedia and because I'm using a university IP, any edits on the next few hours or so are NOT from me the one who used the IP on this vote and I don't know if I'll happen to be on this particular IP again. So, I'm just letting you know that if you don't hear anything further from me and notice radiclally unrelated edits from this IP, that's why. So, good night! --164.107.223.217 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't respond to my request to explain why this is speedy keep criteria. Also, register an account : ) - Chardish 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was in good faith and for valid reasons. I see no reason why this article should be speedily kept. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I disagree; nomination by possibly unconconstructive editor bent on deleting articles. --172.129.74.92 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.129.74.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Above anonymous user has voted "Speedy Keep" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. JuJube 02:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Above registered user has voted "Delete" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.65.72 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Except that JuJube has 26,000+ edits on Wikipedia, 5116 in the project namespace. You have seven, all of which are speedy keep votes that ignore speedy keep criteria. The fact that you don't understand the difference between your opinions and his opinions is indicative of your apparent overall lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and etiquette, as well as your general detachment from consensus (you have voted "speedy keep" in several AfDs where no one else even recommends keeping.) I recommend you 1) register an account and 2) make sure you thoroughly read and understand policy pages relevant to AfD discussions before participating in the discussion itself. - Chardish 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, we all have to start somewhere and why not start by voting to keep relevant and sourced articles that can easily be improved? Keeping articles isn't a big deal as they can always be renominated for deletion and if not be improved. Deleting them however oftentimes unilaterally destroys others' work. Do the people who contribute to articles always happen to be online and therefore aware that someone is even challenging their article if people belonging to some deletionist group team up to kill their work? Going around voting delete in several articles in a short time is far more suspicious and far more disruptive. --172.162.73.121 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you keep disrupting Wikipedia processes to make a point, then stronger action will be taken against you. I've already removed all your trolling comments from other AfD's, so quit while you're ahead and stop trolling. JuJube 06:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but pare down the list and provide reliable sources. I pondered this and thought what games, IMHO, should be listed as controversial: Conker's Bad Fur Day came immediately to mind, along with Leisure Suit Larry and parts of the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Upon scanning the list, Chubby Bunny seemed a logical candidate for inclusion. But strip poker is no more controversial than playing poker for money in the US right now! So I next thought, can the article be improved? Yes: reliable sources should be obtained for each game listed, showing media coverage of the controversy. Games where reliable sources can't be found should be struck from the list. Thus, within two months, the article should be a compact, fully-referenced list. If not, then run it through for a 2nd AfD as unsalvageable listcruft. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But please investigate WP:SOCK participation in this AfD and issue warnings or blocks as appropriate. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD has been hit by several anonymous sockpuppets of a user who has been indefblocked for editing in this style before (and also for sockpuppeteering). I've struck out the !votes of the anonymous puppets and will be watching this AfD carefully to make sure nothing else odd happens. Thankyou all for your forebearance as this issue was chased up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, originally researched, POV pushing trash. Examples include: Ocarina of Time being offensive to Muslims. Who said that? When? What about Final Fantasy VIII being controversial for having spanking? Since when has spanking EVER been controversial in a game? Clearing the crap out of this list leaves you with no article. The article just lists stuff the articles editors consider controversial with no references to whether it was or not. (Does ANYONE seriously believe that Final Fantasy IX sparked controversy for it's 'Tinkle Tinkle' urination scene for gods sake?) DarkSaber2k 10:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Video game controversy Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete There are a number of games that could be in this list with their presence well-justified and sourced (the Grand Theft Auto series would be a prime example), so a much shorter list could be a good article. But this list as it stands has way too much stuff that is OR at best. — brighterorange (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much OR, not enough sourcing. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or completely rewrite from the ground up and source it all. Present content is OR and much of it extremely shaky OR at that: for example, I'm a huge Earthbound fan and have never heard anything about the game being controversial for one character mentioning spanking (WTF?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tag the appropriate items with a source request and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would require about 170 "citation needed" tags, from my count. - Chardish 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unbelievably subjective criteria, particularly about who calls something controversial and how this can possibly be neutral. Groups exist to automatically shoot down every first-person shooter, war game, adult-oriented game, children's playground game involving contact, children's game involving coed play, etc. --Wafulz 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography and probable hoax, WP:BIO and WP:HOAX both refer. (aeropagitica) 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fredy Herrera/ The Phoenix[edit]

Obvious hoax. Google hits suggest "Fredy Herrera" is just some guy from El Salvador. JuJube 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:CB. YechielMan 21:44, 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 as Wikipedia is not a recipe book, WP:NOT refers. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granieri Cake[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.}}

This article clearly violates WP: NOT. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear violation of What Wikipedia is not. —Cel ithemis 00:05, 29 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-overriding policy concerns. Quoting from the policy WP:BLP:

[Biographical material] must adhere strictly to our content policies:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.

This article is a biography of a living person involved in a controversial topic. It is sourced only by unreliable sources: two websites of uncertain provenance ([66], [67]) and by a Usenet post ([68]). This is unacceptable under WP:BLP and WP:V. It does not matter that more reliable sources may not exist or may be difficult to gather; in this case we should simply not have an article on this person. Sandstein 08:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot (Scientology)[edit]

This article is only sourced by websites, not by published sources. I also have a concern because the information in the article, which as far as I know is all true, could be harmful to the subject. Steve Dufour 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No printed sources exist for "The Pilot." However, he was a leading and excessively influential figure in the 1990's Freezone Scientology movement. All the information is cited and verifiable (and mostly has been stated on the Internet by Mr. Ogger himself as is evidenced by the citations). This is someone people want to learn about. If any information in the article is potentially harmful to Mr. Ogger, it is not clear how as all of it has been openly discussed on the Internet by Mr. Ogger and is widely known amongst both Freezone and Church Scientologists.--CaptPostMod 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to more directly reflect the title people interested in The Pilot are more likely to search for.--CaptPostMod 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the article's discussion page, I don't question that all the information in the article about Mr. Ogger is true. What I am concerned about is that now he is not involved with Scientology as a member or a critic but is working as a professional musician, so the article says. What if he applies for a job and someone looks him up on WP? His history could be a problem for him because of both the bad image of Scientologists in our society and the Church of Scientology's own history of persecuting its critics. Steve Dufour 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of attribution to printed sources is to be preferred, but it is not binding. However, I do not see an notability associated with this guy. Ghits reveal mainly blogs, forums and mailing lists. As such, I think it fails notability criterion.

But The Pilot is iconic in terms of the Freezone. His book Self-Clearing is seen by some as a further scripture to LRH's. To not have an article on him is akin to saying that Evangelical Christians would not be interested in an article on Billy Graham. The Pilot is someone that to Freezone Scientologists is seen as a guiding light and spiritual leader.CaptPostMod 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You or me or any other editor regarding something important does not make one worthy of an wikipedia article. Please see notability policy on who is considered notable enough. The article should make it very clear how he is notable. If you can provide articles from reliable sources to establish his notability, I will be happy to retract my vote. --soum (0_o) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how it violates notability. As mentioned on the notability page, notability is not the same as fame. For those interested in Freezone Scientology, The Pilot is a personage that will inevitablly come up. The page clearly states that The Pilot was a significant leader in the Freezone movement. I was not expressing personal feelings of importance, merely stating that The Pilot is a notable person in the subject of Freezone Scientology. I myself found the WP article originally in my search for more information on Scientology. I am not the page's originator, but I know that I'd looked to WP to answer more of the questions I'd had about this name (The Pilot) that crops up in almost every lengthy Scientology discussion or page on the Net.CaptPostMod 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioning that he was a significant leader does not mean anything here, until and unless it is attributed to some reliable source (this is an openly editable wiki, anyone can add anything. Thats why the attribution is needed to make the info verifiable. The notability criterion for biograhies of living persons states that one has to be the subject of write-ups from multiple reliable sources to be considered notable enough for an article. A cult following, or a belief in someones ideals etc etc are not binding to assert notability. Attribution to reliable sources is. So, instances of him being a subject of a handful of reliable sources (at least semi reliable, can be online or print or TV sources) is necessary to assert notability. No amount of evidence of forum discussion can assert it. --soum (0_o) 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed on the "Who's Who" of ARS, on all mirrors of the Freezone America Site, there is an entire page from the CoS dedicated to him, there is a Self-Clearing Academy dedicated to him, the Skeptic Tank makes many references to him, Operation Clambake references him, he is discussed in the PNOHTEFTU (which is itself a very popular Freezone book), he is mentioned on Clearing.org... The list just keeps going on. Reliability in terms of being interviewed by Katie Couric doesn't exist, but he is widely discussed and notable person in the Freezone. Just google '"The Pilot" Scientology' and you will have an outstanding number of sources on him appear. What makes you feel he is not notable?CaptPostMod 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just post the links (make sure they are not forums or personal blogs). It will establish notability! --soum (0_o) 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already links to non-blog/forum sites in the article. While many more are available, how could they be incorporated. It hardly seems useful to the article to have a stub followed by 25 links. Suggestions for how to incorporate?CaptPostMod 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to his own site, a site attacking him, and a Usenet post of his. Interesting stuff maybe, but still not reliable sources. Steve Dufour 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That 100% fails to help in suggesting how to incorporate other links into the article. And if you acknowledge that there is a link to his own page, then you acknowledge that he does not fear this material would be damaging to his person if linked to him (as there is even a picture included).CaptPostMod 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have jumped the gun on saying the article was potentially harmful to him. I was only going by what the article itself said, that he was no longer active in the Scientology controversies and went back to private life as a professional musician. The problem of his notability still remains. But if you can come up with some at least semi-reliable sources I will ask that my nomination for deletion be withdrawn. Steve Dufour 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to handle the potential harm issue: Ken Ogger is not currently working as a professional musician. I happened to track down what he is doing, but as it is not pertinent to The Pilot, I'm leaving it off the article and this page.--CaptPostMod 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is unnotable, then how did you yourself come to view the article? CaptPostMod 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking that. I am on a "crusade" (if you will pardon the politically incorrect word) against the overcoverage of Scientology by WP. I was checking out some of the low-importance and stub articles among the 272 Scientology project articles for some that could be deleted. My concern for Mr. Ogger's privacy is real however. If this is not a problem, as it seems not to be after all, and some small notability for him established I will vote to keep. Steve Dufour 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there, like, a history of Freezone on the net that mentions him? Steve Dufour 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here there is-->http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Is_Scientology_a_religion . But I can't see how that could be incorporated into the article. Any suggestions? CaptPostMod 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat helpful. But still it is just a personal website of a Scientology critic. Steve Dufour 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this guy notable, and why isn't he any different than gajillions of other self-published philosophers, "poets, priests and politicians", bloggers, etc.? According to the article he's widely followed in an offshoot of a religious sect, without any indication of how numerous this group is which would affect whether he's notable or not. Carlossuarez46 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's very notable as perhaps one of the premiere Freezone Scientologists. However, producing the number of members of the Freezone would be virtually impossible. No one is even quite certain how many people are in the official Church as counts vary widely depending on if you go with the Church or secular sources. CaptPostMod 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; how can we reconcile a claim of notability with an undeterminable (or possibly non-existent) following? Carlossuarez46 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Carlos, where did you get this perception that the Freezone is a "possibly non-existent" following? Can you please cite the exact user comment on IMDB that you got this from? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is accepted. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it pleases you to think that someone offered you an apology, I doubt there's anyone who could talk you out of it. What's your source this time, every other letter of a Bazooka Joe comic? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Incivility warranted an apology, which I graciously accepted. As you should by now know, that notability is the burden of the promoter, and here, no one apparently can say how notable this guy is because although he may be "notable" among a following we cannot know how large that following is, making him no more notable that the pastor of any other church. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a different set of rules for Scientology articles than for others. :-) Steve Dufour 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop graciously accepting an apology that was not offered. As long as you show no regret nor remorse for your lie-telling, no apology to you is forthcoming. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A.F. I think you are misunderstanding where Carlos is coming from. He does not seem to be involved in the Scientology debate at all, but is just pointing out the lack of sources for the article. As you know I am pro-Freezone. Steve Dufour 05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[he] is just pointing out the lack of sources for the article." No, I think if you'll look you'll see he is doing much more than that; he is actually attempting to assert that the Freezone is "possibly non-existent", an extraordinary claim and one that makes very little sense. Does he seem to be involved in the Scientology debate? Not so far as I've seen, but that hardly means that his motives and methods are not open to question, and given recent history I think there is more than ample reason to question both. As for "knowing" that you are pro-Freezone, I must say that it surprises me to hear you say that. I can't really say that your actions and words have ever given me a confident sense of what you do truly stand for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could take the things I say at face value. You don't have to, but it would be the best way to understand where I am coming from. Wishing you the best. (Carlos seems to cruise the AfD discussions, I don't think he has a special agenda with this one or the other one.) Steve Dufour 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free Zone (Scientology). I think there is a central point that all participants in this discussion need to be aware of: self-published sources are a valid source regarding their own views (when such views are the subject of discussion, of course.) It might be hard to establish enough notability for an independent article, but establishing enough notability within the Free Zone to discuss him as part of the Free Zone should be rather easy to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like there is a good faith here by recent editors to expand the article as per notability. Smee 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - trying to remove Internet based sources for Scientology is fundamentally querulous - the story of the fall of Scientology since 1995 has basically played out on the Internet, and print sources are of distinctly lower quality on the matter. That is, deleting because "Internet sourcing" on this one is basically an excuse. WP:RS is a guideline, not a suicide pact. As for notability in his area, the article establishes that pretty clearly - David Gerard 09:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fall of Scientology? Is its winter coming up then? :-) Steve Dufour 23:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable figure in Scientology. The article is however a stub and should be marked as such. If the main Freezone article ever gets filled out he will certainly feature there. Merging into 'Freezone' I'd accept as well. --Hartley Patterson 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Caknuck 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nudity and children[edit]

Essay. Original research. Granted that parts of it are referenced, pulling it all together into this article is original creative work. Rambles off into la-la land and probably always will. Magnet for editors on a mission. Herostratus 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - To Wikibooks or Wikiversity. --R e m i 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that article reads like an essay and not able to be changed enough to follow content policies. FloNight 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have a template {{tone}} that is used, rather than deletion, for essay-like, but sourced articles. Given that large parts of it are sourced, the accusation of "original research" is no more stinging than that pointed at the thousands of articles here in various categories of unsourced. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not like this article, but it is sourced. There is no reason for deletion.Biophys 02:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason whatsoever for the accusation of original research. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it rambles a bit, could use more focus and better sourcing (and perhaps balance), and almost seems like an excuse to display the images (which don't relate closely to the text in all cases), but it's a legitimate topic. Maybe work with the editors of other nudism articles to show how this topic relates to those. Some odd omissions, e.g. the photographic work of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and David Hamilton should be covered. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, particularly the unsourced material and editorializing. If absolutely necessary, merge with Nudidy or transwiki it. Content, particularly cited content, should not be lost unless unencyclopedic. "Magnet for editors on a mission" applies to a lot of controversial or limited-interest material. Watching the article, not deletion, is the best way to handle that problem. Dfpc 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I am doing a wholesale rewrite, please see my comments in the article talk page or go straight to it on my user page sandbox. Comments welcome, including "I like the original better" if you feel that way. Dfpc 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "nudity". Much of the article conserns general attitudes towards nudity. Some parts are redundant with child sexual abuse. -Will Beback · † · 19:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: This (and other topics) were originally split out from the nudity article as that was getting too big (see the first section at talk:Nudity and children). It is still a very large article, that could possibly do with things splitting out, not having additional things merged into it. Thryduulf 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment. OK, there's also Issues in social nudity, which would be a good merge target. -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'comment'. Thryduulf is not quite correct. The article split from Issues in social nudity on 2006-09-17. See diff in issues and social nudity and the first version of what is now nudity and children both dated 2006-09-17. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfpc (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Dhartung. This is a sourced article on an encyclopaedic topic, that it is not stylistically brilliant is not a reason to delete. Likewise if being a "magnet for editors on a mission" were a valid deletion criterion then George W. Bush, Iraq War, Islam, September 11, 2001 attacks, paedophilia, pornography, homosexuality, abortion and many others would have gone long before now. Thryduulf 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should definitely stay and remain on its own because it does address an important aspect of social nudity. Legislation has been passed in the past restricted participation of children in social nudity and it is important to have an opportunity to make arguments behind such legislation and also document trends in different parts of the world regarding the subject. Moving this back into the nudity article would make that article, which is already getting very long, even longer. Thank you for your consideration. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (This comment copied from talk:Nudity and children by Thryduulf 22:56, 28 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. —dgies^t_c 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social cycle theory (Sarkar)[edit]

Doesn't seem notable: no Google Print refs, about 10 Google refs. See Talk:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. This article should be either deleted as non-notable or merged to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, and certainly there is no ground for creator's argument that Social cycle theory article should be deleted and replaced with this one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with some merging possible. For the sake of keeping the biography of Sarkar more biographical, perhaps Ananda Marga is the better merge target. --Pjacobi 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive utilization theory. --Pjacobi 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a ridiculous proposal. The Social Cycle Theory is the name of a self contained theory of social dynamics. The theory has been written up in a #1 NY Times bestseller, The Great Depression of 1990 (Simon and Schuster, 1987), by Ravi Batra, as well as his earlier work, The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: a New Study of History (MacMillan, 1978), based on the Law of the Social Cycle by P. R. Sarkar. The title is being appropriated by people that have no claim to it for some page on unrelated sociological theories of historical dynamics. First they propose the Social Cycle Theory (Sarkar) as some alternative to their intellectual theft and then the Afd the page. They then go on to Afd other entries about the theories of the Indian philosopher Sarkar, including his Progressive Utilization Theory PROUT. This is disconcerting behaviour, especially as it involves Piotrus, a supposed Administrator of Wikipedia. Hasta Nakshatra 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Social Cycle Theory - after the other entry presently using this title has been renamed something else, e.g. Survey of the Cyclical Conceptions of Social and Historical Process. Budfin 10:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page has no references, so there is no way of validating the content of the article, although this is not actually a reason to delete it. It's a fairly well-written article, however the name of the article is weird. "Social cycle theory (Sarkar)" is not conventional. Why is the title not "Law of Social Cycle" considering that that is the term actually used throughout the article. JenLouise 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The citations and references have been given. Hasta Nakshatra 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good article. Name should be Social Cycle Theory.Ramayan 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) User's first edit since August 30, 2006.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of the social sciences-related deletions. -- Pjacobi 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of society topics-related deletions. -- Hasta Nakshatra 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep under the present title or conceivably merge into the article on the guru. Pseudo social science, but since it is represented by conventionally-published books it is notable. The article will of course need to incorporate some attempt at a NPOV. There are many theories of social and economic cycles and the suggestion above to call in merely social cycle theory is an imposition. DGG 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a book is notable, but the theory doesn't seem to be cited other than in few sources... move to book article is the best I can think in terms of keep.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article, and there is a bibliography. Only editing is necessary. Also, I have a long argument for keeping the article on "prout" which is 100% relevant to this article as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive utilization theory. Aschoeff 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Hibbert[edit]

I can find no such person listed in the IMDb credits for either Snakes on a Plane or TMNT (the only ones cited in the article), nor for an actor by that name at IMDb. Clarityfiend 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No IMDB entry; No secondary-source verification for cast membership other than those traceable to Wikipedia; Also not listed in cast for either film at Allmovie.com; No relevant Allmovie.com entry; possible WP:HOAX -- even if not, self-evidently sub-notable. --Rrburke^(talk) 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just checked the credits of the DVD and there is no mention of his role or the actor's name. Appears either a hoax or non-notable at best. --Nehrams2020 21:27, 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 as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reunion (MMOG)[edit]

Fails WP:WEB; no external published sources, hasn't won any sort of awards, and isn't distributed through a well-known medium. Alexa ranking is in the 800,000s. Crystallina 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crystallina, please sign your nomination next time according to WP:SIG. To the substance of the matter, delete per WP:WEB. YechielMan 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, forgot to sign, was in a bit of a hurry. Crystallina 00:48, 28 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erkki Pekkilä[edit]

Unsourced biography that appears to break WP:BIO - gives no evidence of matching the notability guidelines for creative professionals. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:07, 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. No deletion rationale presented. Title changes can be requested at WP:RM. —dgies^t_c 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social cycle theory[edit]

The title of this page, Social cycle theory, belongs to the copyrighted work of the late spiritual preceptor P.R. Sarkar and especially of his disciple Ravi Batra. It is used in his #1 NY Times bestseller "The Great Depression of 1990" (Simon and Schuster, 1987) as well as the earlier "The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: a New Study of History" (MacMillan, 1978). The use of this title without permission by some hobby sociologists is not acceptable. Either the entry is renamed or the page has to be deleted. Hasta Nakshatra 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is either not in good faith or rather ill-informed.

Copyright doesn't establish a trademark.
The choice of an article title is governed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions.
A wrong title need not and should not be handled by AfD

Pjacobi 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thought comes to mind that you are acting in bad faith by supporting the Afd to other articles related P. R. Sarkar because of this dispute.

Related to the above, you are clearly working in concert with Piotrus who proposed the Afd of the other article which you support and now you propose this article. You both are working to preserve the illegal appropriation of this title.
Would you use The Bible or Labour Theory of Value for unrelated entries?
The Wikipedia naming conventions do not give you freedom to appropriate others ideas Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

Hasta Nakshatra 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of the social sciences-related deletions. -- Pjacobi 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of society topics-related deletions. -- Hasta Nakshatra 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did your guy actually coin the term "Social Cycle Theory"? Trademark it? Is the phrase absolutely, only only used in reference to his own personal theory? Please source any reply. Someguy1221 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about my guy or their guy. It is about what is right. Below please find a sample of the works on the Social Cycle Theory. The theory was introduced by Sarkar in the late 1950s as the Law of Social Cycle. It soon became known as the Social Cycle Theory and is presented as such in the works of e.g. Ravi Batra since the late 1970s. If necessary, I can reproduce the actual passages involving the name only. Importantly, this concept is only used in relation to this theory of Sarkar. In the offending entry, this title is being used as a grab bag concept for earlier sociological theories of historical dynamics some of which are not even cyclical. For background please note that the entry on Sarkar's Social Cycle Theory was renamed by these people as Social Cycle Theory (Sarkar) so that they could continue to appropriate the term. Then they went one step further and nominated the page on Sarkars theory for deletion. Such behaviour is not suggestive of moral scurples. Amazingly, this behaviour involves a Wikipedia Administrator Piotrus. Hasta Nakshatra 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.R. Sarkar, "Human Society Vol. 2", Ananda Marga Press, Calcutta, India, 1962 (Published earlier in Bengali)
- Ravi Batra, "The Downfall of Communism and Communism: a New Study of History", Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 1978
- idem, "The Great Depression of 1990", Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, USA, 1986 (#1 NY Times bestseller)
- idem, "Muslim Civilization and the Crisis in Iran", Venus Press, Dallas, TX, USA, 1980
- idem, "The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos", Plagrave Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 2007.

Speedy keep. You cannot copyright a generic term, "social cycle theories" are a basic building block of sociology; this is a perfectly valid article. 1600 articles mention this term without connection to Wiki and Sarkar, 19 without Wiki and with Sarkar. It is social cycle theory (Sarkar) that may be deleted. QED. PS. "Theory of social cycles" show 250 refs w/out Sarkar and 50 w/ Sarkar, which might be used as an argument for keeping Sarkar's version, but certainly not for disputing that he invented the concept which can be dated to 19th century works - as early as 1927 the history of this concept was discussed...!--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Survey of the Cyclical Conceptions of Social and Historical Process (Sorokin 1927) is vastly different from the term "Social cycle theory" which is what the article is presently titled. The article could be renamed "Theories of cyclical conceptions of social and historical process". Piotrus here implies the article is currently using the plural form of "Social cycle theories" and not the singular "Social cycle theory". This is a disingenious representation. There is a vast difference. The singular term "Social cycle theory" belongs to Sarkar's work. The term was popularised by him and Batra, even if others are clearly trying to appropriate the catchy term. This article has no merit with the present term, which exclusively belongs to the article of Sarkar.

Delete. The term Social Cycle Theory is associated only with the ideas of Sarkar. It has not be shown to exist in that form before his contribution. A reasonable compromise would be to devise a new title for this entry. Budfin 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unconvinced of allegations. Someguy1221 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless there proof is given that the particular term "Social Cycle Theory" has been registered as a trademark or is specifically copy-righted then there is no discussion. Just becuae it is has not been shown to exist before a perso used it, doesn't mean it is copy-right. Other people use this term generically. JenLouise 04:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no use of this term in the theories cited whereas it is used in relation to Sarkar.Ramayan 10:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Mnatsakanov[edit]

Thousands of people die in car accidents every year. This does not make him notable, nor does being a massage therapist for a professional hockey team. Djsasso 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vladimir Konstantinov. He didn't die in, or as a result of, the car accident as implied in the nomination, but his notability can be, and is, covered the Konstantinov article. --Crunch 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. RGTraynor 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, he's mentioned at Vladimir Konstantinov. His only claim to 'fame?', was the limo accident. GoodDay 17:40, 30 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 Mario. Cbrown1023 talk 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario in popular culture[edit]

Delete - an unreferenced indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance not only of the character but of anything that in the POV of an editor bears a resemblance to Mario. Fails WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and probably a bunch of other policies and guidelines I'm forgetting. Oppose merging any of this trivia into other articles related to Mario. Otto4711 21:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for obvious reasons such as the fact that we're talking about THE all-time most recognizable video game character and therefore it has relevance to economics, culture, history, etc., etc., etc. --24.154.173.243 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I didn't know there was this much popular culture in all of world history. Delete it please. YechielMan 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge as per all delete votes above, unreferenced, almost unreadable format. Some parts are mildly interesting and could be (possibly) merged into their relevant articles. Overall, not a sound piece of work Patar knight 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly selective merge. There are perhaps a handful of entries that can be selected for inclusion in the parent Mario article. This list as it stands is trivia of a scope better suited for a specialist gaming encyclopedia, however. "In A Link to the Past, his portrait hangs in certain houses." Indeed. Serpent's Choice 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning given by 24.154.173.243. As to the reasons others have given to delete, I don't think they are valid according to policy. Arguing that an article needs to be cleaned up or shortened is a clean-up issue, not a deletion issue. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent my arguments again. I am not arguing that the article needs to be "shortened." I am arguing that the article is an indiscriminate collection of information which is a policy violation and that it is a directory of loosely-associated topics unrelated except for having an image of Mario in them which is also a policy violation. The recognizability of a character (the apparent crux of 24.154.173.243's argument) is not a measure of the notability of the character since fame does not equal notability, and the notability of Mario does not mean that every appearance of Mario in another medium, or every appearance of something that resembles Mario in the opinion of an editor, is notable. Otto4711 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mario except for section 1.1: most of the references to Mario from other formats, or in-jokes from other games, are interesting enough (and telling enough about the effect Mario has had on pop culture) to be merged, with a bit of editing, into this section of "Mario". Besides, some less well-known memes have fairly received the same treatment. As far as section 1.1, a few of these appearances are significant but most are far too obscure to keep. Blue Crest 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Serpent's Choice. I would argue that appearances of Mario in other video games aren't notable trivia, as I could easily rattle off two dozen or so. - Chardish 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the decidedly acceptable, encyclopedic, and notable material to the Mario article, which already has a section so entitled: Mario#In popular culture (and curiously that does not even link to this article in an immediately obvious way (as of now)). I do not believe we need to be responsible for hosting a comprehensive list documenting every minor and casual reference to Mario outside of the world of gaming. There could be tens of thousands of other items out there that editors may feel compelled to add in along with the rest. A sub-section called "Examples of ..." and list a dozen or so of the best of the Mario extra-game-world appearances: those which are especially notable and which would appeal to large segments of society. These would have to be well documented with reliable sources - preferably with cross reference links to other articles where the same event is mentioned, and ideally with an external source link which includes some sort of editorial commentary. For example, if Mario appeared in an episode of The Simpsons, then we would expect to see a link to The Simpsons, and to the episode in question, where Mario's appearance is explained in context as part of the synopsis or plot summary, and then an external link to a respected commentator's reaction to that appearance. It is a tall order, but that is the sort of thing that establishes notability. Otherwise all we have is a useless but perhaps curious list, which may not be particularly reliable or encyclopedic, and end up being deleted as unsourced and non-notable. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - does Wikipedia need any "X in popular culture" article, especially where "X" is a pop-culture product in the first place? Baudrillard would have a frickin' field day with this (and he's dead) - in fact, this'd be enough to get Baudrillard to start using the word "cruft", immortalizing it as a serious concept in semiotics. I do think T-dot puts forth a valid position too, but I don't want to suggest a merge, especially any merge which would be more than just cut-and-paste of a paragraph, without a volunteer in the wings. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 05:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be completely unreferenced. Nothing to be gained from merging such content into another article. WjBscribe 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable individual.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale[edit]

This article was created a month ago, and user NBeale has been the primary contributor. It has had a {{LikeResume}} tag on it since the beginning, and there hasn't been any sign of improvement. The article is essentially asserting "notability by proxy", ie, notability by weak association with notable individuals:

The most reliable source in the article is apparently a series of emails NBeale published on his website, in which he initiates a debate with someone notable.
He also cites amorphous "collaborations" with notable individuals; and
he wrote a book and dedicated it to a notable individual.

The original creator of the article, User:Chiinners, has made 6 edits, all to his user page and to the article. BRIAN0918 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -Duribald 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sophia 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search reveals a blog, a few mentions on friends' blogs, a minor book, and this wikipedia article. Non-notable. Gnusmas 07:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.86.136.162.110 08:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course, as the creator of this article, I'm hardly objective :-) Nonetheless, I'd argue that NBeale's work in intellectual investment, etc. and verifiable recognition thereof (thought Sophia had verified this to her satisfaction?) satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(people) - although as a Wikipedia neophyte, I'd appreciate others' thoughts and clarifications on the matter. Having said that, I'm not sure how my user history is relevant to NBeale's notability ... Chiinners 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I've never seen an editor create an article and then leave Wikipedia, and only come back to edit a month later when the article appears on AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 21:53Z

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huffine[edit]

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular gentleman was just a videographer on the team. We do not feel this makes him notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I totally disagree with the above, it should not even be in question. He is not just a trainer but the Video Coach part of the Coaching staff!! This is what HISTORY/(Wikipedia) is all about, interesting facts!!!!! There's many interesting facts about many of these people and not just the players. For example: Chris Huffine is the first North Carolina native to win and have his name etched on the Stanley Cup! This is important to North Carolina Sports history in particular Hockey history!! It's on the Hockey Hall of Fame website: http://www.hhof.com/html/exSCJ06_32.shtml I don't know how many ways to say it. If you've never experienced it you can't judge it... I have and did last year!!! I'm not taking anything from the players, we all know they're the ones that have to get it done!! But, could the players win the Stanley Cup without Trainers, Equipment Managers, Scouts, Video Coaches, Asst. & Head Coaches, Team Services Manager, General Managers, I don't think so!! You need to rethink your proposed changes! - Hadone 16:54, 27 April 2007
- Comment - Wikipedia isn't all about interesting facts. Its about notable facts. The fact his name is engraved on the Stanley Cup for the first time for someone from North Carolina is interesting. I don't dispute that. However, it is not notable enough for its own article. What is being suggested is that we are creating a new article for all those people who were not a player or a coach (cause we all know its mostly those people who affect the winning of the cup). Which we can then put all this information on. There will list and in this case it will have his name "Chris Huffine - Videographer for 2006 Carolina Hurricanes & first person from North Carolina engraved on the Stanley Cup." I mean the formatting will probably be different but you get the idea I am sure. We aren't trying to erase this info, we are just going to place it in the encyclopedia in a more appropriate way. It could be called List of Non-players engraved on the Stanley Cup or something like that. But a bunch of one line articles is not the way to go. --Djsasso 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response So that means in Wikipedia terms when they were celebrating on-ice and in the locker room last year they should of been separated: Staff separated from the Players and Coaches, right?? The fact of the matter he is part of the coaching staff! He's the Video Coordinator not a Videographer. He does the pre-scouts for the coaches & Players. Just ask Peter Laviolette, Kevin McCarthy or Jeff Daniels! Read page 42 of "The Hockey News" 2007 Annual that came out last fall!! BTW he was the Video Coach for the US Olympic team in 2006. The fact that he's from NC does make this a big deal! I just think it's the way wrong approach. There's guys like Skip Cunningham and Wally Tatomir that have been doing this 30 + years that deserve it more than anyone and get cut-out, I just can't buy that!! Thanks!! - Hadone 18:05, 27 April 2007
    - Comment Wikipedia is not a locker room. Its a encyclopaedia. Its not just a fan website for whatever little tidbit that might be interesting to someone. Its a scholastic website in nature and must have certain standards. Videographer or Video Coordinator is just a matter of semantics. Either way he does not meet notability standards. And as stated he will still be in wikipedia. He will just be listed in a more appropriate place. --Djsasso 00:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. He is not part of the coaching staff. His title is "Video Coordinator" on the Hurricanes website. -- JamesTeterenko 23:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. If the intention is to keep information about this person in Wikipedia on a list, then the article should not be deleted as per the reasons noted by Serpent's Choice below. -- JamesTeterenko 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even the Carolina Hurricanes themselves dont feel a need to write a bio for him. Resolute 23:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I thank all of you for your comments! Chris just hasn't updated his bio in the new website, all year his title was Video Coach and the new site has Video Coordinator. It'll be that way until he updates it. If you want hear his story from the horse's mouth read the Hockey News Magazine with Alex O on the cover, pages 42-43. I really don't have to justify anything, I'm just very honored that he's on the Stanley Cup and that I was on the ice for the celebration! As for the Stanley Cup: I've hoisted it, kissed it, drank out of it, fished with it, been to church with it, partied with it, spent the day with it and had it @ my home for an hour!! I thought it was very nice to google his name and see it on the Wikipedia site. Do whatever you want to do with his site, you know how I feel about it! Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hadone (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge. Regarding this, and several similar articles nominated simultaneously, I am not aware of the details of the Wikiproject discussion on this matter, but if the intention is to document these people in another format, such as a List of non-players inscribed on the Stanley Cup (or whatever), should these articles not be merged rather than deleted? Why is the AFD process required for this restructuring? Serpent's Choice 04:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's because the prods we were using to clean up the old articles were contested by this new user and the user who created a couple of them. I suppose we could have just merged and done redirects now that you mention it. But it wasn't something that was thought of. --Djsasso 06:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is still an option. Indeed, I still believe it is the best option. First, because redirects will allow a user searching for, say, "Chris Huffine" to find the most appropriate article. And second, because redirect retain the edit history of these articles to ensure any necessary GFDL compliance. Serpent's Choice 06:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. A directed Google search returns only 92 hits [69] for this fellow. Somehow I don't think too many people are going to be searching for him in Wikipedia, but the infinitesimal possiblity that someone might isn't a strong enough reason to keep an article around. Ravenswing 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Chris who? GoodDay 17:36, 30 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Kobsef[edit]

Autobiography, tagged as such and the tag removed (presumably by the subject). Unsigned. Asserts notability in an unconvincing way. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful and welcoming[edit]

Apparently non-notable church initiative. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If I'm not mistaken, "movements" should be subject to the same notability guidelines as groups, which this clearly fails to assert. Someguy1221 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and not notable--Sefringle 04:40, 30 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.E. Walker[edit]

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular gentleman was just a scout on the team. We do not feel this makes him notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Major assertions in the article unalloyed by any verification whatsoever. RGTraynor 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in keeping with the WikiProject's views. In otherwords, G.E. who? GoodDay 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Huffine -- JamesTeterenko 05:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 original research. (aeropagitica) 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-inflicted masochistic infatuation[edit]

Blatant original research; prod removed. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like a half-assed pyramid theory. JuJube 02:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quintessential WP:OR. Unsoruced, unsupported, and largely nonsense. WP:NFT. Serpent's Choice 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. -- RHaworth 07:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Seems to be original research (sort of); transwiki to Wikiversity. --R e m i 12:36, 28 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Pickard[edit]

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular gentleman was just a trainer on the team. We do not feel this makes him notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. He was inducted into the Professional Hockey Athletic Trainers Society/Society of Professional Hockey Equipment Managers Hall of Fame. This is displayed at the Hockey Hall of Fame [70]. Although this is a biography of a person that many people will not know, he has received one of the top accolades of his profession. -- JamesTeterenko 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge and redirect as per reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Huffine -- JamesTeterenko 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. The article asserts (without verification) that he received such an induction, but the actual webpage at the HHOF site, as per that link, doesn't include him in the list of inductees. RGTraynor 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That link doesn't show any inductees after 2004. I was able to find this reference, which speaks to him being inducted with Ron Waske in 2006. -- JamesTeterenko 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It doesn't speak well of the notability of the award that the HHOF hasn't updated the page in three years. RGTraynor 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. However, I am changing my vote on all the nominations, since the intention was to keep the information within Wikipedia anyway. -- JamesTeterenko 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I can say is, Jim who? GoodDay 17:32, 30 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Gervais[edit]

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular gentleman was just an equipment manager on the team. We do not feel this makes him notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Equipment managers do not warrant their own articles, even if their name is on the cup. -- JamesTeterenko 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Huffine -- JamesTeterenko 05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, fails WP:V, WP:BIO. RGTraynor 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GoodDay 17:29, 30 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Scifleet[edit]

Autobiography, one sentence and a list. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. --Phoenix (talk) 17:55, 29 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 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stream machine[edit]

Non-notable toy in an unreferenced, avert-like article. Mikeblas 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references provided. No coverage of teh product beyond catalog type listings found when searching. -- Whpq 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Userpie 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, reads like...something useless. --Phoenix (talk) 17:56, 29 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 as an attack page and for incurable BLP violations (no acceptable version to revert to). This page should not have lasted this long. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike "The Metaled" Ashdown[edit]

No references in the article. I can't find any references on this fellow being involved with "TWA". Mikeblas 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references cited, and none found googling. Page is borderline attack page. -- Whpq 23:26, 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 that deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDS International[edit]

This is the second AfD debate. The first one, opened on 27 March, closed with No Consensus to Delete, having 3 votes to Delete and 2 to Keep. The reason for trying again so soon is the legal threats that were made and the constant improper edits to the article and the Talk page, apparently by partisans of two warring companies, MDS America and MDS International. The article was placed under full protection on 24 April and the protection should not be permanently lifted until the article's future direction is settled.

Here are the legal threats by User:Jeanclauduc: [71], [72], [73], [74]. At various times he has threatened to sue Wikipedia as well as six different named editors, one time claiming that the suits were already filed. The MDS International article lists Jean-Claude Ducasse as the CTO of this company, and we are assuming that User:Jeanclauduc is the same man.

An attempt at diplomacy was made by User:FayssalF, a French-speaking admin, but in the end, Fayssal's attempt to clear up one of the allegations (about XingTech) led to still a further legal threat, this time from 83.206.63.250 (talk · contribs), who we are assuming is the same person as Jean-Claude Ducasse.

Vandalistic edits have continued on the Talk pages of the two articles MDS America and MDS International, with editors often changing comments left by a previous editor. Legal charges and countercharges have gone back and forth, and regular editors have had a hard task to remove all the defamatory material. Since this company is of somewhat marginal notability, I'm proposing the article for deletion since it's not worth the hassle and the potential trouble for Wikipedia. At this time I'm not proposing MDS America for deletion, because although there has been a lot of policy violation in the edits there, there have been no legal threats. I realize that blocking a number of editors would be another way to handle the situation, but I'm offering this AfD as a more diplomatic alternative. EdJohnston 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this giving in to vandals? What's wrong with semiprotection and/or limited blocks as is the norm? nadav 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We'll be a better encyclopedia without it. — Athænara ✉ 04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Kirby♥time 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spare us the trouble for a NN subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's rationale is persuasive, but this article has also failed to establish the notability of this company according to WP:CORP by providing multiple independent reliable sources with this company as its subject. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I don't understand, but there are 5 articles cited that seem to be about the company. It sure looks like it satisfies notability, and I get the impression that a lot could be found about it, especially in European papers. I would like to see better reasoning for the delete vote; as of now I'm leaning towards keep (with proper anti-vandal measures instituted). nadav 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of the 3 articles cited which we can actually access and read, MDS America is the primary subject of those articles and mention of MDS International seems trivial. Perhaps it is a notable company in france and perhaps good sources in french media can be obtained to assert notability, but the current sources do not cut it for me. Russeasby 14:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One linked article mentions this company more than fleetingly, and that's a press release. The titles of the unlinked articles are unconvincing. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's what I found (French and English): [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. nadav 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I just want to emphasize that I don't know the backstory of the article or controversy. What is the connection to MDS America? nadav 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The cedmagazine.com link is another MDS America article. The broadbandweek.com link does however seem to give a bit more then trivial mention of MDS International, at least more so then others presented so far. I cannot read the french ones though. If you can read french, I am curious if you can take a look on the FR WP and let us know if there is an article there and if its worth translating? Reguarding the issues with the article, hopefully Ed will jump in and explain, I know he has been on top of this one so far. Russeasby 15:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources seem to indicated that MDS America is merely the American licensee of MDS International, so it's weird American firm gets the big article. I feel like I'm missing something here. nadav 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC) My French is terrible; I don't think I could be of much help with that. nadav 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not party to the initial agreements or other legal documents, but what I do know is that there is currently no relationship between MDS America and MDS International. Fabrice Ducasse was the inventor of most (all?) of MDS International's systems, and he now works for MDS America. MDS America bought a significant amount of MVDDS spectrum in the US and was responsible for the lobbying effort to keep the FCC from simply giving the spectrum to Northpoint. I'll see if I can get some more clarification from people who were directly involved, but it's definitely the case that MDS America does R&D and does not receive any sort of equipment or assistance from MDS International. Bhimaji 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This seems to contradict the few references that have been found, all of which point to a relationship between the two. Obviously this is a complicated matter. Can you provide some references that establish the fact that there is no relationship? Based on sources we have, we can only accept that there is indeed a relationship. Russeasby 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's another one: [82]. Can we really justify keeping just the article on the American licensee and not the article of the international firm whose products it sells? I think not, and am voting for Keep. [See below 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)] nadav 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot of stuff going on, and some lawsuits. At the time of Kirk Kirkpatrick's testimony to the US Senate in 2003, everything seemed harmonious between the two companies. I have deliberately tried not to gather any more information as to the relative standing of the two companies, since it seems not to be discussed in any reliable secondary sources, and I think that for us to speculate on the meaning of primary sources, in a litigious atmosphere, would not be wise. There was also some information in the Talk pages (at least temporarily) hinting at one company or the other being totally incompetent, or not owning the patents, but with no proof whatever by our standards. An additional reason for deleting this article is that any defamatory material in the back versions of this article will go away, without having to use oversight. If someone wants to recreate this article at some point in the future, rewriting it from scratch using reliable sources, it could perhaps be considered. Someone would have to dig up reliable French sources, though, that provide the real current status, that did not just re-summarize the familiar information from old press releases that go as far back as 2002. And the overseas installations of the MDS system, is there anything at all known about their current status? Does MDS still operate them? Are they still selling and shipping their equipment? What does MDS America actually do? Do they buy their equipment from MDS International, or make their own? Do they still pay any license fees? They seem to actually be competing with MDSI in Ireland. It seems we know hardly anything, and everything you read (even in the press) sounds like a press release. MDSA's web site does not even mention MDS International.
- I think that WP:AFD should have an extra clause in it, for dealing with articles that have legal problems, though it doesn't currently. EdJohnston 16:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia as a rule does not shy away from dealing with controversial topics, including court cases. If there is anything defamatory in the history, it can be deleted by an administrator. As for current status, we can just ignore it if there are no sources. The article can say "as of 2003, such-and-such is the case." And as of 2003, MDS America's CEO said "we are the North American licensee of MDS International, the leading designer of terrestrial broadband transmission equipment in the Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) band. MDS International has deployed terrestrial broadband systems in numerous locations overseas, providing video programming and high-speed Internet services to many delighted subscribers...MDS America hopes to introduce this innovative terrestrial broadband technology into the U.S. market."[83]. (BTW, here's an odd article on the French position on the case: [84].) nadav 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will see what I can get in terms of reliable sources for this information. However, what I can say as a matter of direct, personal knowledge is that MDS America does not currently resell or rebadge any equipment from MDS International. Everything that MDS America sells is either manufactured by contract circuit board assembly companies or is customized equipment manufactured for us by different industry vendors. I've seen the sales people for every MDSA-badged piece of equipment in our rack, so I know that we don't acquire them from MDSI. I'm not an official auditor, so I can't testify in court as to the matter, but i've asked a number of people at MDS America separately about this, and they have all maintained that there were never any licensing fees paid to MDS International at any point in time. There is, right now, no legal relationship between MDS America and MDS International. The contempt of court order makes it pretty clear that the two companies aren't on speaking terms, and specifies that, for example, the HyCaNC patents are owned by MDS America. It would be extremely strange for a mere reseller to acquire patent rights to a system if they are only rebadging it. MDS America does its own R&D; I'm personally designing some systems at the printed circuit board level for MDSA. Bhimaji 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your very direct and clear report. Are you aware of any ban on either company talking to the press? This might account for the difficulty in finding press accounts. EdJohnston 17:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - While very interesting in a tabloid sort of way, this is all really inconsequential to our task as wikipedia editors. The point is, there are no sources about the current status. However, there are a lot of sources about the status til 2003 (Here's an early article: [85]). So clearly we should just write what the sources say, making sure everything is properly cited with inline citations to the growing list of refs, while clearly indicating the date of the statements. We can't ignore this topic just because there is a controversy. If that was our policy, there would be no Arab-Israeli conflict articles. nadav 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Nadav, and thanks for your insightful comments. Do you have the time or the patience to add the new information you have just discovered to the article itself? If not, can you sketch out the general form of the changes you envision? I can't imagine keeping the article unless there is SOME reference to the legal problems, but it would need to be appropriately vague. EdJohnston 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the legal problem would be mentioned here, would it not need to be mentioned in MDS America as well? Do we have any citable sources on the legal issues other then what has been tossed around on the talk pages? The big problem with both of these articles is the WP:COI editors from both companies who are going to continue to insist on editing and warring over these articles. Which is a tough problem to deal with. A lot of IP editors involved who I suspect will remain insistant as well. I am reluctant to go forward unless an admin is standing by to help, this could turn into a very tedious process, just to keep a small couple sentance article. Russeasby 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Semiprotection and blocks have worked for far more contentious issues. In terms of content, I think MDS International should be a short article describing their technologies, clients (Nigerian TV uses hypercable according to the Independent [86]), and court case against Northpoint. I will gladly work on it, but I want consensus to be established first about whether we keep an article about them despite the legal issues. nadav 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would need to see the actual wording of a statement about the legal issues before I'd be tempted to change my vote. Also there ought to be a 'Talk page consensus' that would back up that statement so that we could 'prosecute' any editors who reverted out that statement for 'disruptive editing', which requires a true Talk page consensus before it can be asserted, per step #5 of WP:DE. If there is no strong consensus, it will be very hard to defend the future article. Nadav, if you are so inclined, can you draft a sentence or two that would describe the legal issues, that can be added to the article? You may have to mention the 'Consent decree', or whatever that thing was, even though it is a primary source. EdJohnston 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think there is a misunderstanding here. The current dispute is about the court case of MDS America vs. MDS International, whose only direct mention on the internet is this page [87] and the Contempt of court finding uploaded on wikipedia (which should not be cited IMO since it cannot be easily verified). Now, there is also the concluded case of Northpoint Tech. vs MDS America and MDS Int'l. About that case, there are a lot of sources, and that case is not the reason for the edit war (MDS Int'l and MDS America won the case). The natural course of action is to omit any reference whatsoever to the newer disputed case, since it is not covered anywhere. nadav 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ not notable, and especially not worth the headaches its been giving. Weak Delete now, keeping an eye on what nadav is coming up with. If the company proves notable I have to support keep, reguardless of vandalism and conflict issues. Russeasby 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+I am a senior member of the Management of MDSA. While MDSI was somtimes called by us the "licensor", both companies were owned by the same entities prior to the legal troubles (This has been admitted by MDSI) and considered ourself one entity. The legal problems between MDSI and MDSA which stems from the conduct described in the article were "solved" by agreement sealed under a protective order from the court. (This conduct is alluded to, or described by us and admitted to by MDSI in the various talk pages.) However the Court itself released the contempt order and therefore made it possible to discuss the terms mentioned specifically in the Contempt Order against MDSI. MDSI is prohibited from selling product directly or indirectly to the United States as stated in the agreement. MDSI also agreed to drop any civil lawsuits they had filed against any member of MDSA anywhere in the world, (Fabrice Ducasse was a Board Member and Owner of MDSI and was not covered by this clause.) There never were nor are there now, and criminal cases filed anywhere in the world. All of the threats to the contrary notwithstanding. Some of this should be obvious since even jeanclauduc admits that his oldest son, Fabrice, works for MDSA not MDSI. We were not involved in the "outing" of the Real Networks software piracy (which appears to be an employee in MDSI.) However we understand it since it was exactly what caused the "breakup" inthe first place and we are cooperating with REAL fully. 65.2.150.213 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this information is not very relevant, because Wikipedia can only refer to facts appearing in secondary sources. Since this information has been sealed, we are confined to material that appeared earlier. When this new information is released, it can be incorporated into the articles. nadav 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked about my involvement with the article which started via WP:OTRS ticket 2007032010023302. While I can't disclose any private information, the complaint dealt with the fact that much of the article dealt with a supposed current legal situation without providing any sources. After reviewing the article, I found the complaint had a good deal of merit. Some primary sources (court documents) were cited, while most other links went to the company website. I removed the offending section and tagged the article as needing secondary sources. Due to very pointed disruption on the article shortly after, I reviewed the remaining sources and information and found that very little of the text was actually contained in the sources given. In fact, sometimes the source completely contradicted the article's text. Further corrections to basic facts were made by the account Jeanclauduc; after those changes, the article agreed with the company's homepage. There has since been almost non-stop edit warring by two accounts with clear agendas. User:Jeanclauduc has self-identified as an employee of MDSI, while User:WizardOfWor has self-identified as an employee of MDS America. They have both attempted to push their agendas on this article and one for MDS America. Most of the non-trivial coverage for MDSI occurred in 2003 around one incident and they seem to have little media coverage otherwise. In my opinion, this doesn't meet the spirit of the WP:CORP guidelines. Shell ^babelfish 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't profess much real familiarity with how the WP:CORP guidelines are applied, though I have read through them. I do understand the requirements for good sources for information. The federal court ruling is a reliable primary source - it is clearly true, but its importance, relevance, and context are obviously up for debate. Unfortunately, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about their impact on MDSI when the press doesn't seem to have noticed, let alone cared. A federal judge stated:

MDSI was in contempt of court

Certain disclaimers should be on the MDSI web site, but are not

Contrary to MDSI's claims on their web site, they do not have the rights to the HyCaNC patent - MDSA has them.

The reason I point this out is because I believe that any article about MDSI that made no reference to this would be deficient. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an entry for every company, but rather to contain useful, correct and relevant information. The apparent lack of any secondary source commentary on something as significant as a federal contempt of court finding indicates that it is simply going to be impossible for the MDSI article to contain the sort of useful information that an article on Wikipedia should contain. A permanently stubified article with no current information would be pointless. An article referencing just the primary court documents would not meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. WP:CORP is not intended to save Wikipedia's hard drive space. Rather, the idea is that notability is essential for encyclopedic accuracy. If the press doesn't care, and the web doesn't care, it seems to me that it will be impossible to have an accurate article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhimaji (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure the "press didn't care": clearly the fact that the case has been sealed, except for the contempt document, has something to do with it. About notability: Unfortunatly for the MDSI article, the main articles about the company that I cited (including an interview with Jean-Claude DuCasse) were in French (which I don't really know), so I at least am unable to extend the stub as I'd like. I am however starting an article on the Northpoint v. MDSA,MDSI case, and I suggest, if you are so inclined, that MDSI become a redirect to that page. Thoughts? nadav 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The press does cover sealed agreements: [88] [89] [90] come from a quick search of Google News. I've read numerous stories about Microsoft settling lawsuits with sealed agreements. The filing of the lawsuit against MDS International was publicly available. The entry of a settlement agreement was also a matter of public record - it's just the precise details that were kept secret. Generally speaking, it's considered very positive news when there is no longer a federal court case against a company. It's obviously a lot easier for journalists, and Wikipedia, to cover public settlements. However, sealed settlements are still noteworthy. Bhimaji 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here, and at the top of the AfD page, I'm giving a pointer to the document sometimes known as the 'contempt document' or the 'contempt of court order'. Although this is a primary source, it seems to be the only reliable evidence, visible on the internet, of what the current situation is between MDSA and MDSI. Thanks to Nadav for his tireless work, and I'll volunteer to help with any French documents, if he can find any that are useful. EdJohnston 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the above I am an employee of MDS America. I would like to thank EdJohnston and nadav for real efforts to bring accurate information to this article.
Northpoint sued MDS America and only subsequently added MDS International later in the case. MDS America defended the case, and was decided primarily on the testimony of Kirk Kirkpatrick of MDSA and Fabrice Ducasse, then no. 2 in the MDSI company (at the time both companies has similar owners.) MDSI's was only peripherally (they did no lobbying, no representation before the FCC MDSA hired Sen. Robert Dole) involved. The attorney who won this case is very proud of it and I believe has it posted on his web site. I will find the link and post it here. WizardOfWor 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on article work. Nadav has been preparing material for the MVDDS article, and considering options as to which articles to preserve. Some editors who are associated with MDSA have been sharing general information which will help us make sure the articles are correct. There is some discussion going on at User_talk:Nadav1 and User_talk:EdJohnston. Please be patient. EdJohnston 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and recreate as redirect) I have changed my vote. Since all the media coverage of both MDSI (passing mentions in English, wider coverage in French) and MDSA are essentially either in connection with the Northpoint case or technical articles on MVDDS, I now believe both companies' articles should bcome redirects to MVDDS dispute (which is a work in progress) or MVDDS. I will afterwards propose a merge for MDS America as well. Since there are no dissenting opinions on deletion now, I think this discussion can be closed. nadav 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work, but I beg to disagree about the early close. An AfD that is closed early requires more discretion by the admin, and thus increases the chance that a deletion will be contested at WP:DRV. Keeping the AfD open gives a chance for many opinions to be heard. The five days will run out on May 3. EdJohnston 18:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose that would be wiser. nadav 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am Fabrice Ducasse, my name was mentioned several time in MDSi articles and talk pages. I am still a MDS International shareholder. I have been involved in the creation of the MVDDS systems since 1994 with MDSi and then MDSA. I am not sure if my point of view or my post will be considered in this talk. If you want, I can give you a brief historic of MDSI/MDSA/MVDDS creation and development. I will answer to any question. --Fabrice10 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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