Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 27 August 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biker Zombies From Detroit[edit]

Biker Zombies From Detroit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable independent horror film. IrishGuy talk 23:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Local coverage or minor mentions found in Google News Archive, no in-depth reviews and the film won no awards. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no in depth reviews listed on imdb, not much coverage on the web beyond passing references, although I did find one hit that said it was accepted to Cannes, appearantly not winning any awards though Ealdgyth | Talk 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Watch[edit]

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

Second nomination. Non-notable website, no independent sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Website has a ridiculous amount of coverage ranging from CNET to the NYT, if only someone would grab some of those for citations. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, I don't see much significant coverage. Lots of press releases and minor blog mentions, but little major media articles. No doubt the company exists, and the original owner gets mentions in business rags, but it's not exactly Microsoft. Put up good references and I'll be convinced. MarkBul 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't just a nothing website, but rather, one where the founder is quite widely cited, in books and other media. I think their awards are also fairly notable, since they receive some attention as well. I suggest tagging for cleanup. I expect this might be a bit hard since the people involved get quoted a lot, enough that I'd say that alone demonstrates notability. FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth considering this as a property of Mecklermedia as well, which I can find a lot more direct sources on. [1]. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And hey, I found this page: [2] which has the following quotes: Google's Matt Cutts considers Danny Sullivan's Search Engine Watch website "must reading." To Yahoo's Tim Mayer, it's simply the "most authoritative source on search." Hmmm....I think that makes a pretty strong case for notability. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely those who want to keep this can come up with reliable sources? Corvus cornix 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can read the article I cited. Or is USAToday quoting two representatives from major search engine companies not a reliable source for some reason? FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can add the source to the article, which has been sourceless for two years now. Corvus cornix 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I want to, but I take it that you have no objections to the source? That it satisfies your concern as to reliable sources attesting to the notability of this site? FrozenPurpleCube 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If those who claim that the source is valid don't want to add it to the page, then just how sure are they of their claim that it's valid? Corvus cornix 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100%? Speaking for myself, I am quite comfortable with the source, I just don't feel like bothering with editing the page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem odd to introduce sources into a discussion and not add them--it's at least as easy to add them as explain why you aren't. But the criterion for keeping an article is sourceable, whether or not it has been actually edited to show the sources. DGG (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NYTimes coverage satisfies WP:WEB. Italiavivi 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, leading news site within the Internet Marketing space. If you do a few Google searches, you can find plenty of potential references. The standard is referenceable, not referenced. - Jehochman Talk 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite notable, as per NYT and USAToday refs confirm. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, obvious bad faith nom as user has history of vandalism and other disruptive edits. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia[edit]

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

Seems to be advertising the site, with nothing to prove it is notable. Please do not speedy close this nomination. USApr0n 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, I see articles from New York Times Select, Guardian Unlimited, Hindustan Times, the New Zealand Herald, and Arizona Daily Star. I'd say that's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 17:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep its a notable subject, has enough sources to back up notability. Sherzo 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, Very popular website, a large amounts of hits, has enough sources, as per above, (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=uncyclopedia.org&url=uncyclopedia.org/) and there is absolutely no reason to delete --KaufmanIsAwesome 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's worth keeping. Uberpickle 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please check the references section and the other deletion nominations before nominating an article for deletion. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, the notability is well-illustrated by the references and the site has been mentioned in the mass media. Also, I personally don't see any "advertising" of the site, so I assume a bad faith nom. I'd also like to point out that this is USApr0n's 3rd edit on Wikipedia. And, there's also vandalism among his few contributions, so the nom itself may be a prank.Erratic Communist 22:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. However, the discussion indicates that the article needs to be cleaned up and sourced; if this does not happen within a reasonable period of time, it would be appropriate to open a new AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in popular culture[edit]

Climate change in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very trivial list of mentions. Doesn't serve much purpose, except to be yet another "pop culture" cluttered list. RobJ1981 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article should probably be moved to "Global warming in popular culture", but it's a concise summation of fictional depictions of the "worst possible scenario". Mandsford 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. The topic has been the subject of non-trivial scholarly works.[3] It can be made an article about the subject and keep a few of the most notable examples. Dbromage [Talk] 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mere existence of the words "climate change" and "popular culture" in the same issue of a journal does not in any way indicate that the subject of "climate change in popular culture" has been the subject of any works. This is yet another directory of loosely associated topics looking to bring together any reference to something that even resembles climate change whether it takes place on Earth or not, along with stories which are not about climate change at all but are instead about superviallian plots to blow things up or use heat rays or whatever, and bangs them together to pretend that the list tells us anything remotely encyclopedic about climate change, the works listed or their relation to each other or the real world. Delete it. Otto4711 13:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the relevant Global warming or Climate change. Several of these titles aren't even about climate change, and the ones that are can be detailed in the main articles. Crazysuit 04:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why we should want to delete the article because a few of the items are wrong is something i cannot understand. if we get started that way, we'll end up with very few articles left. An absurd deletion criterion: Delete if the article has an error. WP, the encyclopedia with all very few articles perfect .DGG (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This of course does not answer the nominator's reasons for the AFD. Otto4711 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"trivial list"--trivial is a bald assertion, presumably meaning, sounds trivial to me, a version of Idontlikeit. Even "list"--this is not a list, but an article with short paragraph-length descriptions of each point.
"doesnt serve much purpose" WP articles are not intended to serve a purpose, in any practical sense, except in the intellectual sense of providing information . This does that.
"another popular culture cluttered list" Cluttered is an odd way of looking at what I would consider full of content, another pop culture list--well, yes, so it is, and, pop culture being notable, it should be kept. So much for the nom. arguments. A few further arguments have been made:
"the mere existence of the words "climate change" and "popular culture" in the same issue of a journal " That seems a misunderstanding, the words occur together not in the same issue of a journal but in each individual individual scholarly article, and while not all of the 1280 talk about it specifically, the titles and quotes from some of them clearly do. I think that those opposing these articles are not carefully considering either the articles or the evidence proposed to support them: " the scientific-policy debates surrounding climate change. ... El Niño became a part of the popular culture", "how this process was influenced by climate change. ... In popular culture this simple onward and upward view of human development", and most spectacularly "and then resonate with and through popular culture. ... concerns over environmental degradation, global warming, climate change and weapons of ... " (K Dodds - Progress in Human Geography, 2001). This is as clear a demonstration as could be asked for, and if you want to see the details, go read the article.DGG (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you see, as with so many of these trivia dumps, the article is not about "climate change in popular culture." It's just a list of supposed instances of it. Feel free to write an actual article about the topic if the sources you're citing are actually about the subject and not just instances of the words appearing together, but these lists of "look, over there, climate change on a TV show!" are not sound bases for encyclopedia articles. And as far as the claim that this isn't a list, of course it's a list. A list whose items consist of a couple of sentences each is no less a list. Why, you yourself have generated a list in your response just above, and your list items all consist of multiple sentences. The idea that a list of trivia is no less a list of trivia because it's not laid out in bullet points is ridiculous, and this list is in fact laid out in bullet points. It's form over function, style over substance, and the fact that a list looks somewhat non-listlike is not an excuse for keeping the list. Otto4711 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an article about cultural influences can be in either list or paragraph format--or table, as a few of similar articles have been. it is not bullet points that make a list, but the presence of short items of information --typically a sentence at the most,or an entry in a table. Whether or not bullets are used, this isnt a list. I mention this only because some have above & elsewhere used form as a criterion, under the mistaken idea that there is a rule against list or even deprecating them.
The real question is content, and the fact that the creators of one work make reference to others is one of the bases of art and literary construction and discussion, and i have shown you a number of articles showing that just such discussion take place in notable peer reviewed sources. That really does meet all the requirements--sourceable is sufficient. We do not discard articles that can be improved--or at least we generally haven't been until this series. I am, quite frankly, not particularly interested or qualified in writing about the subject, and I do not argue that the article should be kept because I personally want to work on it. i don't. I want it kept so that others can, and since I very quickly found some rather obviously relevant sources, I include them both to prove, that they exist, and as a starting point for others. You challenged me to find them, and I did. I've met every challenge you've made--even given the greater amount of work in meeting such a challenge than in making it. I've found sources very time you ask, and you go on asserting there aren't any or that everything that is found is not relevant. I think this indicates that you object to the topic even though the material meets all the rules. I haven't the least problem with that, you can have your own opinion about the importance of this, as long as you do not attempt to destroy what other people think important. (We've worded this as you & I but this is just a convenient way of speaking-- I am sure we both mean those who oppose the article on these grounds and those who support them, without any personalities really being involved in this). DGG (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said repeatedly, I do not have an objection to an actual sourced article about this topic. A mere list of examples of the topic is not an article about the topic. The notion that a list composed of a series of short paragraphs is not a list is bizarre. Otto4711 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as notable, per above, but needs at least 2 more cites IMHO. Bearian 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Yeah, global warming is notable, but this doesn't work as an article, just a trivial list that doesn't belong. Dannycali 22:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This can be cleaned up and properly sourced. Thin Arthur 05:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This result does not preclude a merge, which can be proposed on the article's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses in hellenistic literature[edit]

Moses in hellenistic literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Makes statements of a religious nature (ex. "...this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law"). References only books in the Bible, and not secondary sources. Alksub 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the whole text it quotes many historians and you are taking the quote out of context read then whole thing While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face... yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature...but this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law; he died and was buried like any other mortal...Owing to the contact of the Jews with the Greeks in Alexandria, Moses was made the subject of many legends, and in many respects lifted to supernatural heights.--Java7837 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it actually references some good historiographic sources that should be added to the list at main article, which I mean to do soon, then this straight up copy from the 1911 Jewish Encyclopedia can safely be deleted. Til Eulenspiegel 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now merged the main historiographic bits worth salvaging; most of the rest of this is hardly modern or impartial language ("Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are..."), so I say go ahead and delete now. Til Eulenspiegel 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD tagged as copyvio Corpx 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Encyclopedia is a PD source, see the article on it. DGG (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh...Transwiki to wikisource then Corpx 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is not POV read these quotes
  1. While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10; comp. Num. xii. 7), and who, when descending Mount Sinai, had a halo about his head which so filled the people with awe that they could not look at him (Ex. xxxiv. 29), yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature
  2. the views of hellenists for example Ben Sira was probably the first to compare him with the angels, the Jewish men of letters who lived in Alexandria were by no means satisfied with the idea
  3. Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are, they are scarcely inventions of Artapanus only.
  4. Long contact of the Jews of Alexandria with Egyptian men of letters in a time of syncretism, when all mythology was being submitted to a rationalizing process, naturally produced such fables.
  5. Philo also shows familiarity with these legends; he refers to the beauty of the babe Moses.
  6. The end of the great lawgiver especially was surrounded with legends.
  7. Philo says: "He was entombed not by mortal hands, but by immortal powers, so that he was not placed in the tomb of his forefathers, having obtained a peculiar memorial [i.e., grave] which no man ever saw"
  8. Later on, the belief became current that Moses did not die, but was taken up to heaven like Elijah. This seems to have been the chief content of the apocryphon entitled "Assumption of Moses," preserved only in fragmentary form
  9. No sooner was the view maintained that Moses was translated to heaven than the idea was suggested that his soul was different from that of other men.
  10. Philo also calls Moses "the mediator and reconciler of the world"


Do not misquote it actually says"While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10; comp. Num. xii. 7), and who, when descending Mount Sinai, had a halo about his head which so filled the people with awe that they could not look at him (Ex. xxxiv. 29), yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature. He lived for forty days and forty nights on the mount without eating and drinking (Deut. ix. 9), but this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law; he died and was buried like any other mortal (ib. xxxiv. 5-6). Owing to the contact of the Jews with the Greeks in Alexandria, Moses was made the subject of many legends, and in many respects lifted to supernatural heights." ....

Besides if you think it violates POV then simply edit the article--Java7837 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it references many non-biblical texts only the introduction quotes from the bible only to show while the bible says moses died and other things hellenists said many things about him that conflicted with the bible

texts quoted Eusebius, "Præparatio Evangelica Philo Josephus Flavius Assumption of Moses and many other hellenistic peoples and their texts --Java7837 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs editting, but the topic is notable. --EAEB 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. Jewish encyclopedia should not be cut and pasted onto wikipedia. Granted there is no copy violation. but the article are near impossible to read. The references are hard to understand, and much of it is original research. JE is fine as a source, and ok of a backbone of an article - but cut and pasting does not do wikipedia any favors. After a few months sentences degrade to the point where they are ununderstandable and there is no one to ask what was meant. Jon513 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. It is not original research, because it comes from Jewish Encyclopedia. WP:OR is when the Wikipedia editors do research themselves and then publish it in an article. If it has been published elsewhere, it is never OR. The article needs a lot of cleanup, but deserves to be kept.--Carabinieri 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', thoroughly cleanup, add modern sources. Mukadderat 16:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per EAEB. Needs significant rewrite and modernization, contemporary POVs and sources, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia reflects a particular POV, etc. However, these problems can be corrected, and the material is encyclopedic. --Shirahadasha 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs a massive rewrite/cleanup, as others have said... but it can be sourced, and is certainly a noted phenomenon in traditional literature. ◄Zahakiel► 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - maybe nobody saw my comment above, but just to reiterate, since I have just merged all salvageable info in at Moses, making this redundant, why not just redirect it? Til Eulenspiegel 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not move a majority of the material to the Moses article you even some jewish historians beliefs under Moses in rabbinic literature which is a major error in that philo josephus flavius etc. are not considered rabbis and also their works are not considered authoritative by Jews or the Rabbis--69.153.48.188 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply incorrect. I moved some information to the section already entitled "Moses in Jewish thought", which is 100% appropriate and had already been tagged for expansion, even. Obviously, we agree that there have historically been more streams of "Jewish thought" than the "rabbinic literature" (which is usually written much, much later) and that said "rabbinic literature" does not speak for all streams of "Jewish thought". I also moved a valuable quote to the historiography section. The rest of the material that I didn't merge is total outdated opinion / POV of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and is of scarcely any value to a neutral and impartial encyclopedia, eg. "Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are..." There is no real need to keep mostly the same info duplicated here buried amidst so much POV and outdated language; it can become a redirect. Til Eulenspiegel 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems kind of late in the discussion to field a new proposal. Suggest keeping it to a straight keep/delete here since others have weighted in on those choices. If it's kept, you can always propose merging it with the Moses article. --Shirahadasha 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then, if you are sure I will need to start a whole new discussion to propose that the merged article be redirected. Til Eulenspiegel 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, which means the article is kept by default. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-elitism[edit]

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

Unreferenced POV rant, draws highly unorthodox conclusions from no evidence, WP:BLP issues due to given examples of "anti-elitists"; no evidence of topic notability in any case Eleland 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. The notion is very notable. The article is easily salvageable with little googwill: it may be easily trimmed to acceptable stub based on readily googable refs, with strict control of subsequent edits. "Evidence of notability" criterion is for people and bands, where there is a danger of self-promotion. Philosophical terms are automatically notable if they are discussed in serious publications. `'Míkka 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Actually, evidence of notability is for all topics, although if terms are discussed non-trivially - not just used in passing, but actually discussed - in reliable published sources than notability usually exists. It may well be desirable to have an article anti-elitism but this one is so bad that it needs to be deleted so we can start over. Eleland 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 06:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no sources and is unverifiable and appears to all be original research. It contains no reliable secondary sources. The article should be deleted. If someone recreates it at a later time and writes from reliable sources, so be it. --Pixelface 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but perhaps include in Wiktionary. It's not a neologism, but 'there's no there there' in the article. --Rinconsoleao 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, seeing Thoreau, Marx, and Tom Clancy mentioned in the same list is kind of amusing... --Rinconsoleao 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Míkka. --EAEB 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mikka. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable subject, published in countless scholarly sources. (See Google books, or a few random scholarly texts from around the world: [4], [5], [6]). Please refer to the policy that states that a lack of sources and low quality writing is an established deletion criteria on Wikipedia. Never heard the "We need to delete this article so that we can start a new, fresh article" argument before. Pia 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki To wikitionary Mbisanz 06:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Articles should be written FROM sources. The person writing an article should be looking at a source and writing FROM that source. Wikipedia is not a place for unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. I think it is wrong to write something and ask others to research a topic for you. Wikipedia is not here to do your homework for you. The burden of evidence lies with the WRITER, not the READER. If the writer of the material is too lazy to research a topic themselves and cite their sources, why should the reader have to make up for it? The fact is that Wikipedia articles can start rumors and they can snowball. Here's a post on kuro5hin by Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia and founder of Citizendium (or someone using his name) [7], about anti-elitism on Wikipedia -- although I don't think kuro5hin is a reliable source; it probably counts as a self-published source. --Pixelface 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and strongly clean-up. There's probably enough material to make this into a real article, but it needs to be found. --Bfigura (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philia Zintzo[edit]

Strange article about an alleged form of love. No traces on google. `'Míkka 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.No third party sources.Harlowraman 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the printed sources listed are relevant. what google has to do with it escapes me. does need a rewrite for clarity. DGG (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DCG, you are long-standing wikipedian, and I am surprized that you didn't notice that the references are for other things, not for "zintzo". Of course you will find lots of refs for "love" and "philia". `'Míkka 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, retitle. DGG (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To what? We already have a really long philia article. `'Míkka 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. "zintzo" means "nice", "honest", "decent" in Basque language, and I doubt the word exists in any other language. Mukadderat 16:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Unless creditable references can be found. Looks like original research or maybe hoax. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COmment Looking at the credis, I would suggest this is OR. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, author blanked the article. --Coredesat 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Crash Prediction of 2007[edit]

Wall Street Crash Prediction of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

About predicted stock market crash this year. Looks like a problem with WP:CRYSTAL and maybe original research to get it wriiten. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced crystalballism. Jakew 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not only unsourced crystalballery, it rambles and is hard to read. I can almost G1 this. Almost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The similar Wall Street Crash of 2007 was written by the same author and speedy-deleted for the same reasons. The reasons he cited for his conclusion exist virtually every month — billions in put options are always in play. Pure prediction and original research, borderline nonsense. Realkyhick 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wall Street Crash of 2007 was speedy deleted at creator's request because he had concerns about the title. So I brought the new article here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and break the crystal ball. At best it's OR. Dbromage [Talk] 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by consensus. He wasn't traded for Sheffield – he was part of a package that the Tigers sent to the Yankees _for_ Sheffield. On top of that, he hasn't pitched above AA and just made it to AA this year. If he makes it to the bigs, the article can come back, but he's not notable right now. - KrakatoaKatie 09:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Whelan[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player, has not played in the major leagues. Fails WP:BASEBALL guidelines. Corvus cornix 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry Kevin - your mom loves you, but you are not notable in a Wiki-kinda way. MarkBul 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close. WP:BASEBALL is not a policy. WP:BIO asserts notability if a player plays in a fully professional league. Minor League Baseball is a fully professional (not semi-professional or amateur) league. It's pretty cut and dry. Smashville 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BASEBALL is not a policy, but i is a guideline we can follow. I don't think the minors convey sufficient notability. As to Wikipedia:Speedy keep, not applicable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO specifically says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". It doesn't say anything about major and minor leaguers. In addition, he was traded for Gary Sheffield. Although I will admit that this looks like it was written by his mom. Smashville 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO isn't a policy, either. Why not argue that just being an athlete is notable? why is WP:BASEBALL any less authoratative than WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, for that matter? Corvus cornix 15:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as BIO supersedes the general WP:N when it is applicable, so do the guidelines for particular sports supersede the general specification. Maybe this specific rule should be changed. In that case, try to change it..DGG (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely in support of WP:BASEBALL's guideline. The MLB draft each year has 50 rounds, with 30 teams picking in each round. Combine that with all the sandwich picks etc and there is a lot of "new blood" into the system each year. Since roster sizes are set, these players are taking the place of somebody else and I do not think we need to make 1500+ new article for each player selected to be a professional Corpx 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Corpx. --Bfigura (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep He is of significant note in Texas A&M Athletics History, esp in Baseball. While the current article does not make this distinction and can certainly be improved, I see no reason to delete it. In addition, the minor leagues are certainly professional sports. — BQZip01 — talk 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why he was significant in Texas A&M history, he seems to me like a non-notable minor league set-up man to me, only award he got was from a Summer League which is not proffesional, WP:BASEBALL is not policy, WP:N is Delete Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify my position. Delete unless he has notable achievements while at TAMU, as I'm opposed to keep minor leagues just because they're minor leaguers. Corpx 03:55, 3 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show[edit]

List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure listcruft. An indiscriminate list of talk show guests. The list is not notable in and of itself, and is nearly empty, and unlikely to ever be accurately maintained. Realkyhick 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not even notable enough for a category. Corvus cornix 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless and unmaintainable. Wasted Time R 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oh yeah, majorly WP:LISTCRUFT, I mean I even no someone who was on the show who is not mentioned and I don't watch the show. I know because I saw 5 minutes of one episode. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As very incomplete and unnecessary. The notable guests can be mentionned in the main article.--JForget 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of loosely-associated people, appearing on a talk show for a few minutes is not a notable event. List of guests on The Dick Cavett Show and List of guest stars on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour should probably be nominated as well because they're all as bad as each other. Crazysuit 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per we're not a directory of people who appeared on a daytime talk show Corpx 06:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After putting a link to the list on the show's official website from the main article, delete, but not before doing that. Donnabella 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its empty anyway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it were remotely possible to have an accurate and semi-complete list, and if there were a noteable reason to have such a list, it'd be one thing. But none of those criteria are even approached. --DJBullfish 03:31, 1 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 keep. No delete argument here counteracts the arguments that it has the sources to meet notability. CitiCat ♫ 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2007 lunar eclipse[edit]

  • Comment:Actually, I think we do have an article for each day the sun rises. They aren't about the sun rise but they are about the day. ;) IvoShandor 06:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genuine? I am not quite sure what you mean there. Seems the 3 March eclipse was also total. IvoShandor 07:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was front page in Philippine Daily Inquirer yesterday and front page today in Philippine Star. Report of lunar eclipse also found its way on 24 Oras. Too bad I did not see it in person *shakes fist against clouds* --Lenticel (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per nom.--JForget 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Total eclipses should either have their own article or have one article for all total eclipses.Robotboy2008 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike solar eclipses, an eclipses of the moon happen regularly enough that they individual events are not that notable. Mandsford 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commetn That's not true. Solar eclipses happen pretty often, but the difference is that they can only be seen from a very small part of the world, unlike lunar eclipses which can be seen about half of the world. --Itub 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by Adam Bishop above. Deor 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, lunar eclipses aren't that rare or notable individually. All the article tells us is when and where, which could be dealt with by creating a much better List of lunar eclipses. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: both per nom. IvoShandor 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete per nom. Jac roeBlank 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Pictures are worth adding to Commons at least Mbisanz 02:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Smerge to List of lunar eclipses Not everything that appears in the newspaper needs a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Edison 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not every lunar eclipse appears in newspapers.--Lenticel (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Transwiki is not an option. as Wikinews uses CC-by, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL content --lucid 03:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In English, please. Peter G Werner 07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Transwiki is not a valid option because of copyright law. --lucid 07:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That might be true of images (though I believe many of them are on Commons already, anyway), but that's not true of article text. Peter G Werner 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) OK, I see where this is stated. I wonder who's brilliant idea it was to put the different Wikis under incompatible licenses. Peter G Werner 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is ridiculous. Of course keep it. It's an unusual event! This gets to stay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Academy_Awards Wikipedia repects celebrities more than the solar system? I can't believe this is even being debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestorInYou (talk • contribs) 03:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't a valid argument, as explained by WP:OTHERSTUFF. And any particular lunar eclipse is not usually historically interesting. You have to ask yourself, in 10 years will people remember who won the Best Picture Oscar in 2006? I'd guess yes. But in 10 years will anyone remember there was a lunar eclipse in 2007? Also if you don't think we should have an article on the 79th Academy Awards, nominate that article for deletion. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's not saying we should delete the 79th academy awards article, but I don't think either event most people actually take seriously. I remembered the last lunar eclipse, but I don't even have a clue about last year's Oscars. 220.101.40.105 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep people have thought these notable for thousands of years, and recorded each one carefully. Two a year does not seem like an excessive number. given that there are two a year, yes, people will remember 10 years from now -- or a hundred years from now--that there were some in 2007. Long after the academy awards are a matter for specialists in bygone popular culture trivia, they will be notable. This is the essence of encyclopedic content. ITDOESNTINTERESTME is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lunar eclipse hight not be important to you, but to others it is. Every lunar eclipse has something special to say. For example, people in Australia were able to see a lunar eclipse for the first time since 2000! Removing this fact is removing information from an encyclopedia! To sum up, think about others and not just yourself. Hohohob 07:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the eclipse would not be removed from the encyclopedia - it would still be listed. If kept, it would end up being a short little stub with almost no useful information in it. Why does it deserve its own article simply because a certain group of people got to see it? —Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list of lunar eclipses. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If each lunar eclipse event is a fantastically notable event, then why has no one bothered to contribute an article on any lunar eclipse event prior to 2007? If each was such a historic, notable event, surely these prior events would still be notable a few years later. Peter G Werner 07:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This debate is getting a bit heated (not terribly) but let's all try to remember to assume good faith here.IvoShandor 07:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes there is nothing particularly unique about a lunar eclipse. A total lunar eclipse (85 in a century) is a bit more rare. A full blood total lunar eclipse (getting even more rare). This eclipse produced spectacular images compared to other total lunar eclipses. I don't mind deleting it later down the track, but people who were watching the sky last night and want to find out about it specifically can look at this article. Keep it for now and delete it in a month or two. Handmedown 08:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes not a mention of this, and the images look strikingly similar to those in 3 March lunar eclipse article to the untrained eye. IvoShandor 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for precisely the same reason. Gorman 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP! This is a very good example of a well-documented phenomenon; this event, for whatever reasons, brought, and continues to bring, people together. This is part of the magic which is, after all, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.229.201 (talk) 09:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
    A well-documented phenomenon doesn't mean that each event needs to be captured independently - that actually ends up either spreading good information out across many articles, or results is in massive duplication of information across articles. It would be better to capture this RECURRING well-documented phenomenon in a central place that discusses it properly: Lunar_eclipse —Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep!, It is informative because this 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse article is one of the longest eclipse this century because I see the actual lunar eclipse outside to my house that moon is appear color orange.--Joseph Solis in Australia 10:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I was not able to see it. --Howard the Duck 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*That's got to be the most laughable argument I've ever seen on AfD. What's next, delete World War II because I was not able to see it? --Itub 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chill, my vote was half-sarcastic to the vote above mine... --Howard the Duck 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, seriously now. Lunar eclipses (and all other eclipses in general) aren't that notable. First, something should have happened to make that eclipse notable - for example, if two nations go to war because of the eclipse, then it may be notable, but then again it will be under the article about that war. Another way for making eclipses notable is if scientists discover anything new. I haven't heard any new findings by scientists in order to make this eclipse notable. --Howard the Duck 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Gorman. --DandanxD 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems to me that a lot of the keeps are based solely upon "because I like it." IvoShandor 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons that Handmedown gave, then maybe merge into a article covering other lunar eclipses (maybe by year). --Leaderofearth 11:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I consider keeping it justifiable under WP:5P, "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" (emphasis added), and WP:NOTPAPER. It is certainly notable in the sense that there are many reliable sources about it, and it is also useful to people interested in eclipses (before someone adds a link to WP:USEFUL, please read all of it). Wikipedia has over a million articles. Having potentially a few hundred articles about eclipses is not excessive coverage IMO; it's certainly not comparable to having an article about every sunrise as some have suggested! --Itub 11:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But to actually make it useful, wouldn't it be better to have similar events collected together so that a good, formal explanation of the event and why it is special could be addressed in one place? —Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very useful to have a table collecting all the eclipses, and there is such a table already: List of lunar eclipses. However, having articles about individual eclipses let us add more information that's not possible to fit in a small table entry. For example, pictures, detailed information about the time and visibility of the eclipse, media coverage, and (perhaps in some cases) notable events related to the eclipse. Whether this would be excessive detail or not, well, that's where we disagree. --Itub 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was that either in the lunar eclipse article, or in a separate "total lunar eclipse" article, the exact topics which you mention could be covered in a more centralized fashion. I have no problem with the information contained in the nominated article - it's the fact that this is something that happens over and over and could easily be addressed with one article rather than lots. —Mrand T-C 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It wasn't visible at all in Europe. --Minimaki 12:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the point is...? --Itub 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...per Howard the Duck of course :) --Minimaki 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in disrupting the AfD process with jokes in order to make a WP:POINT? --Itub 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in making this nomination less confrontational? --Howard the Duck 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles. Being total lunar eclipses qualifies them as notable in my book. Gandalf61 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to Mrand's dismissive comments below, I will be more explicit about my reasons for keeping both articles: WP:NOTABLE says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article". Both total eclipses have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's current policy, both total eclipses are notable. Therefore nominator's claim that they are not notable is incorrect. This claim possibly arises from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of "notable". Gandalf61 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your position. While the topic has been significantly covered, further down in WP:NOTABLE, it explains how Notability is not temporary. In my opinion, this is a perfect example of temporary notability. What would not be temporary is an article on all total lunar eclipse's that have happened, explaining why they are rare and where they were visable from. Best regards. —Mrand T-C 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is exactly the point I've been trying to get across. These articles are prime examples of "presentism". This most recent eclipse might be noteworthy right now, but they won't be noteworthy even next year. If each and every total eclipse event is a unique and noteworthy event, then why no article on the September 16, 1997 total lunar eclipse? Why is this not noteworthy still 10 years later? Perhaps because total lunar eclipses are not as fantastically unique and noteworthy events as proponents of these article are stating? Peter G Werner 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no valid arguments are being offered for keeping. The mere existence of the lunar eclipses does not warrant an article on it. If there were something otherwise notable about the eclipses then fine, but there wasn't. Otto4711 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Per reasons given above by Otto4711, Adam Bishop, MarkBul, Evil Monkey, and others. Itub looks to be the only one actually attempting to offer a valid reason.—Mrand T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per DGG's argument and Itub's reasonable considerations. Non-notability is definitely one of the most absurd and (alas) abused strategies to remove valuable knowledge from WP. --DarTar 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, DarTar and Itub. Full eclipses are per se notable, unless otherwise shown, and do not waste space. Bearian 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope whoever is closing the AfD looks at the strengths of the arguments made and not just at sheer numbers – there are some fantastically poor arguments being floated by proponents of keeping this article. So far, the only argument I've seen is that total lunar eclipse events just are notable, in and of themselves. This is an assertion, not an argument. Peter G Werner 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Peter, when you say "This is an assertion, not an argument" it looks as if you're suggesting that notability arguments brought by users in favour of keeping are themselves non-notable. I encourage too the person who is closing the AfD not to look just at sheer numbers but at WP's notability policy about coverage in independent sources referred to by Gandalf61. While this criterion is reasonably objective (i.e. measurable) and should provide a definite argument in favour of notability, the "temporary notability" argument (how long will this event survive) looks fairly speculative and contrary to the spirit of an encyclopedia (it could be virtually applied to any recent WP addition). Moreover, since the outcome of the previous AfD vote for the 3 March was a weak keep or merge (i.e. deletion was excluded), I wonder if it's technically possible to reopen a vote for deletion for that article as you did --DarTar 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save keep this option. Not every eclipse happens in the same places every year, and Eclipses are not that common. If they are, why are there only going to be two total eclipses between 2008 and 2010? I would like to have page dedicated to a specific eclipse that way its easier to find in search engines -Orioncali 5:57, 29 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orioncali (talk • contribs)
    • First, please start your comments at the bottom of the AfD rather than than put them into the middle of the AfD header itself like you just did. As for your argument, have a look at list of lunar eclipses – total lunar eclipses are not a terribly rare or unusual even. In a given 4 year period, there will typically be a string of 3-4, roughly 6 months apart, over a 1 1/2 year period, then 2 1/2 years of only partial eclipses. Each event will be visible anywhere in the world in which it is night at the time the eclipse takes place. That does not amount to a rare event by a long shot. Peter G Werner 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge into single article lunar ecliopses are notable per se. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 23:10, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just have to say, the occurrence of something is not a reliable indicator of notability. Hurricanes happen plenty of times a year, and probably get much less media coverage, but I can promise you that most of them will have articles, because they are an interesting event with reliable media coverage. That said, I think I'd rather personally see the articles done in a combined format, say, "Lunar eclipses from 1990-2000" and so on, with their articles remade into sections. This would allow people to gain more useful info from them than a table or list, while at the same time being easier to read and allowing a good place for pictures that represent them, and not having a wide array of articles that will probably never have any real content --lucid 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the NASA the 28 August Eclipse was the deepest and longest in 7 years. I've updated the article accordingly quoting two distinct sources. --DarTar 00:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original reason for this nomination isn't valid. The fact that such eclipses are not rare isn't a reason for deletion. Politicians and baseball players aren't rare but nobody deletes them because we've got twenty articles on other politicians already. These are scientifically significant events which get widespread media coverage and the more proper science on wikipedia the better in my opinion. Nick mallory 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it obviously passes the standard criterion of being covered by multiple reliable sources. Beyond that, many references and reasons for notability have been added. This is a worthwhile article. -- Renesis (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to List of lunar eclipses. There is no more a need for articles on individual eclipses then there are for articles on individual solstices and equinoxes. DCEdwards1966 03:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with both Edison and DeEdwards1966, it seems a worthwhile at a glance but who is going to remember this eclipse from when years go by? Merge to List of lunar eclipses.--PrestonH 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given by Nick mallory and Renesis. This event got substantial media coverage. Thin Arthur 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. Wikipedia isn't a news guide. There is WikiNews for this type of thing. RobJ1981 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please make an effort to read the discussion before you reply. It was already very clearly said that we cannot transwiki this to Wikinews --lucid 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of lunar eclipses. There is nothing significant about this lunar eclipse over others. -- Whpq 20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Okay, I finally found this page after improving the article. List of lunar eclipses is a great starting point, but specifics on each eclipse are interesting and worthy. I'd support one article for EVERY historical eclipse, if there's information and energy to give information about each. A lunar eclipse is a world-wide event, each visible around more than half the earth, with differences in the umbral appearance from the season and weather on earth. Nasa's summary graphics are great for "predictive" qualities, but post-eclipse observations are also worthy, even if just a gallery of good photos to compare. Just because we have a small start doesn't mean its unworthy to keep. Tom Ruen 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - certainly a notable event, and there is no justification to delete on the basis of notability. It IS a notable event, and should be kept.--Paaerduag 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is indeed note-worthy, and the article's content is unique the eclipse and sourced. If it was to be deleted/merged maybe we could have a page for each year there are some eclipses and have a different section for each eclipse. If that still seems like too many article maybe an article for each decade detailing each eclipse therein? But I support keeping it. Cheers, Rothery 01:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment we have two million articles we can afford to have two more a year. It should be totally unnecessary to compromise to fit in minute increments like this. The effort in maintaining the extra articles and the load on the servers will have proven much less than the time effort and server load wasted in bringing this afd and needing to defend. But lets hope it has at least educated the people who argued such things as that individual eclipses were not unique! goes to show how badly we need increased coverage of the really important things in the real world. DGG (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Educated? So far, the "keep" folks haven't managed to argue anything at all except that a lot of people apparently WANT articles on individual eclipses. I have yet to read any clear, concrete argument as to what exactly is "unique" about each total eclipse event. Nobody has answered my point about why, if each total lunar eclipse is a fantastically unique and notable event, why there are no articles about such events prior to 2007. And I'll point to this specific event again – the September 16, 1997 total lunar eclipse. I throw that out as a challenge. Why no article if this was a unique and notable event? Does anybody even remember this event and what was unique about it, even 10 year later? And I can tell the reason why nobody can recall what was unique about this event – it wasn't. And I don't think the August 28, 2007 total eclipse will be any more remembered in 10 years. And DGG, I have to say, the whole reason I think you're even arguing this point is out of a totally knee-jerk sense of inclusionism. I actually count myself as an inclusionist in my Wikipedia philosophy, but inclusion of articles like this push this idea to the point of utter ridiculousness. Peter G Werner 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (reponse to Werner) - since "similar stuff exists" is not recognised as a convincing argument for keeping an article, then "similar stuff does not exist" is likewise not a convincing argument for deletion. Also, do not dismiss the fact that this discussion shows that a lot of people WANT articles on individual eclipses - this is fundamental, not irrelevant. It shows that there is a consensus forming here, which maybe needs to be recorded in a guideline that specifically defines a threshold of notability for astronomical events (in the same way as we have WP:NUMBER for articles on numbers). Gandalf61 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there actually people arguing we should be deleting articles because of server load, and hard disc space? Are there actually people arguing we should be keeping articles because of there isn't a problem with server load, and hard disc space? Evil Monkey - Hello 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using the hard drive space argument. I'm aware Wikipedia isn't paper. I simply don't think having multiple articles on nearly identical events is at all a good idea. Peter G Werner 03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to DGG, not your comment :-) He seems to be suggesting that since Wikipedia is not paper we shouldn't delete the article (and I want the article deleted as well you). Evil Monkey - Hello 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. They are sourced, notable, informative, and wiki is not paper, so why not? They don't have to be "particularly special or noteworthy" in my opinion, I see no reason to delete the articles. Melsaran (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest the creation of articles on individual Saros cycle series. Once Saros cycle series 128 exists there would be no reason at all to keep this article, whilst at the same time preserving any noteable content, thus not restricting the event to one line of a table. BeL1EveR 10:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless or until an alternative solution is implemented. The event is notable enough to justify more than a line in a table, on the basis that many relatively minor hurricanes, floods and earthquakes justify their own articles, often despite similar or less media coverage. BeL1EveR 10:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most minor hurricanes/typhoons, tropical storms and tropical depressions do not have articles and are just sections within their respective season pages. --Howard the Duck 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a new article, for example, 21st century lunar eclipses and add info about others.--Svetovid 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (trying to be constructive in spite of the notability vs. non-notability discussions that risk to become pure metaphysics) Instead of debating about whether an eclipse is notable or unique per se, can we please look at the AfD proposal from the following angle. An article was proposed for deletion, in the meantime it has been expanded by several users with information that is detailed, well-formed according to WP guidelines, scientifically valid and supported by several references. Merging such an article in a long list of eclipses would simply be impossible because the list would immediately become unreadable. So the references, pictures and astronomical details (i.e., everything that makes the article worth keeping) should inevitably be dropped. So I'd like to ask frankly to those who still believe the article should be deleted as of the latest revision: do you really consider the information the article contains irrelevant/not worth being kept on WP? In my opinion what happened since the AfD was opened is precisely the opposite: an article that was still a stub (and as such more or less plausibly eligible for deletion) has now grown into a text with rich, detailed and authoritative information that I just can't see how people may ever want to delete. --DarTar 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This eclipse happens again? The same one? It has happened before, so apparently I can create an exact replica of this article for the 1989 eclipse (with some different photos). This doesn't seem to make it uniquely notable. How do scientists weight this? Does this particular eclipse have its own name, because if this is a cycle the potential is that a huge number of identical articles can be created. This new information seems to imply that each eclipse is not unique and is in fact the same as others, it would seem to me that this article is probably mistitled at the best and misleading at the worst. IvoShandor 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eclipses repeat in patterns which are similar so grouped as numbered series. The Saros cycle, 18 years 10 days, but shift slightly. These shifts mean the series has a definite beginning and end, over hundreds of years and dozens of cycles. That's the geometry of the eclipse in a 3-body problem. However the orientation of the earth's rotation will be different, so it will repeat at a different time. Secondly photographs of two lunar eclipses from the same series MAY look very similar, but could also look different too - since the red light inside the shadow comes from refraction of light through the earth's atmosphere, so the existence and distribution of clouds will affect the darkness and color. It would certainly be interesting to compare photos eclipses of the same series, and their similiarities and differences are what make them interesting to observe and record. Tom Ruen 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For Saros series, I have a quick reference of charts for each series and occurance. Each column is on 18 year period, and each row is a single saros series, so moving left to right shows a very slow progression of the moon's centering in the shadow from south to north. [8] My graphics are simple, not overly worthy of Wikipedia, but better than the Nasa ones, since it shows some of the stars and constellations a little. You can see the background stars shift ~10 degrees left between occurances. Tom Ruen 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reply to Ivo Shandor - lunar eclipses that occur at equivalent places in the Saros cycle are not identical. The eclipse tracks will be different; the position of the Moon against the background of fixed stars will be different; visibility will be different. All that is the same is the relative positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun (and even that similarity is only approximate). Saros cycles are simply a convenient way of grouping lunar eclipses - you can think of them as being the astronomical equivalent of hurricane seasons. Gandalf61 09:25, 4 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 all. — TKD::Talk 05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu[edit]

Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Expired prods that someone may find some value in keeping because of their relation to Monty Python, I'll let the community decide. I am also listing:

-- Carlossuarez46 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - as prodder. They are all WP:PLOT failures, being nothing but descriptions of sketches that have no notability beyond the show. Monty Python is very notable but that notability is not inherited by every segment of every episode. Otto4711 22:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless real world sources giving notability are found Corpx 06:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:48, 2 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loo (comics)[edit]

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

This incredibly obscure character appeared in one-half of one issue of Lobo comics. Insufficiently notable for its own article. Konczewski 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge somewhere, I agree with the obscurity point you make, fails notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oh yeah no way this meets WP:N or WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a plausible typo of Lobo which is the only place this character should be mentioned anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 10:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British terrorism and Pakistan[edit]

British terrorism and Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should either be deleted outright, or be merged with Terrorism in the United Kingdom. This article violates WP:NOT by providing a list of quotes. A better place for this info would be Wikiquote. The article also violates WP:NPOV IP198 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I dont think the content should be deleted, some of it is of use. The article itself meanwhile does not necessitate a page of its own --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's almost all quotes from elsewhere. And the title makes it sound to me like the Btris are terrorizing Pakistan. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research, POV fork, unencyclopediac garbage.--SefringleTalk 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing of any real use -- Roleplayer 00:06, 3 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. CitiCat ♫ 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable names in anime[edit]

Notable names in anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that this list is mostly original research because there are no reliable third-party sources referencing these individuals as "the most influential and notable names in anime." Membership on the list appears to be entirely based on the editors' discretion and will inevitably have problems with WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: So fix it and add some references. Looking down the list, it shouldn't be too difficult to find references indicating notable status for these individuals. It's getting annoying to see articles being nominated which only need some references, especially by people who participate in a WikiProject specifically about the topic of the article in question. Rather than nominating such articles, it would be more productive, and a better use of everyone's time, if you instead tried to improve the articles, and only nominated those for which you could find no references. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can't be "fixed" by adding references, because the choice of what references to use in order to decide "notability" (as defined by this article) will be original research itself. The use of the word "Notable" in the article's name shows it will always be a subjective article, since all people who have articles are notable by Wikipedia standards, so this is using some arbitrary measure to limit the names to the ones on the list. Crazysuit 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a little extreme. For just about any topic out there, a decision has to be made about what sources to use. That decision is never considered original research. Even with anime, there are those considered to be good references. You can see some here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a better suggestion for a replacement word? "Notable" was likely used because it's something which can be easily and clearly shown through solid references. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't comparable to "just about any topic", since very few articles like this even exist. That is, articles that are entirely based on subjective opinions of who is "notable" or "important". Choosing sources is only original research when, in cases like this, those sources are being used to assert an opinion or a POV. Crazysuit 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a category, as it is not for us to determine who is notable among the notables and who is not Corpx 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I've added some very reliable sources to back up the inclusion of many of the individuals in the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sourced or not, the very concept here is inherently subjective. I don't see any reason for it to exist. Doceirias 03:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No more subjective than any other articles which contain sourced statements or attributions of notability for one reason or another. This article just happens to gather several individuals together, and it now has references for the notability of many of the individuals on the list. With the references, it certainly meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, and (at least for the individuals who have references) is no longer WP:OR as the attribution of notability is referenced and attributed to a reliable third party source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Far more subjective. You can prove that those people are notable, but not that the list itself is worth having. Doceirias 05:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, all of the concerns expressed by Farix have been addressed. And the list is subjective only so far as any list or criteria for notability are subjective. All of the referenced individuals are clearly notable based on the references provided. I'm fine with removing others from the list until such time as reliable sources can be provided showing they are clearly notable. But saying that the list itself is worthless is absurd. It may be worthless to you (as you may not have any interest in the topic), but to someone seeking to research anime in general, the list is clearly an excellent starting point for seeing who are the best-regarded and most important names in the business. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia, isn't it? Provide good, sourced information that can be used to further research on a given topic? This list clearly meets all applicable criteria for being kept, so unless you can find something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a reason, your argument has nothing solid on which to be based. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think you've addressed those concerns at all. This kind of article has no business on Wikipedia in the first place. This has nothing to do with arguments about how should be on the list and who should not be; I'm disputing the existence of the list itself as inherently unencyclopedic. It isn't the function of Wikipedia to tell readers who is important and who is not, but to tell them why someone is important and what they have done. This type of article belongs on some other website, and wikipedia is where readers of that article come looking for a specific name and further reading on that subject. Doceirias 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This list is indeed worthless. Unless some kind of attribute can be applied, like awards, then the only purpose for this list is a subjective footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyuuA4 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep' (and rename) I think the article has been unfortunately named. Can we rename it to something like "List of " or something. -- Taku 08:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every description for each notable name can be brought over to their respective articles, if they're not there already. KyuuA4 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doceirias, among others. It's patently a POV issue for Wikipedia to have a list of who is notable. (Not to mention redundant, since every person in the category "Anime Industry" should have been notable in order to have an article created around them). --Bfigura (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since the biggest problem seems to be people having a problem with the title of the article, I have moved it to List of historically influential people in anime, which should be much more palatable to these individuals as it no longer has the apparently controversial word "notable" in the title. Is this acceptable? Can we agree that this kind of list can be easily maintained, referenced, etc., etc.? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of historically influential people in anime is worse, since "historically influential" is even more POV-based than "notable". It isn't just the name, it's the entire concept of this list that is the problem. Crazysuit 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not true. It's very easy to show who has been influential as you can reference articles stating that. This is the kind of thing that articles will often do when discussing the history of any particular subject: list those who have been influential in it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list has a subjectively defined scope, therefore, it can't pass WP:OR. The intention of the list seems to be subjective so the scope cannot be redefined to be acceptable. Jay32183 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's assume for now that as wikipedia editors we can determine who is, or is not, notable in the field of anime. What, then, is the purpose of this article? Particularly notable names can be included in the main Anime article, and all names which meet notability criteria can have their own articles, which can be added to an appropriate category. I don't think that "List of notable X" in general makes a good class of article. Where is the reliable source stating that notability is notable? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without reliably-sourced and unambiguous statements of membership criteria, this does not pass WP:LIST. Cool Hand Luke 14:36, 4 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Scott[edit]

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

The article does not prove the subject's notability and, despite the claim that the subject has made over 55 films, I could not find any independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In fact, the only actual mentions seem to be the IMDB page, which identifies only two films directed by the subject, and the person's personal webpage on Angelfire, which fails the "independence" criterion. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless significant coverage about him is found Corpx 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. There is so little coverage on this — I can't even find "I went to see this movie" blog posts on the individual movie titles — that I think this may be some kind of hoax — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as discussed above. VisitorTalk 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per unanimous decision. non-admin closure.--JForget 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects[edit]

Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball or an Indiscriminate collection of information. Is also badly written and is not notable Pheonix15 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. The article deals with the ongoing theoretical discussion of what such colonization will entail. It contains information from what some leading theoreticians have proposed. It is of scientific, educational, and encyclopedic interest. It is not random cruft. This sort of discussion has taken place for all the Colonization articles. It is as notable a subject as the other, more firmly established, survived AfD articles about Space Colonization. If Sagan and Dyson aren't notable enough as authorities, than who is? As has been said in other AfD's, deletion is not a cure for bad writing. The cure for that is clean-up, expansion and editing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not crystal ball-ism. As mentioned above, this is about a theoretical possiblility and is of scientific interest, not so very different from colonization of Mars or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. It has reputable sources and as for it being badly written, there is a simple solution for that - add a cleanup tag or fix it yourself! Tx17777 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article seems to have several mentions in good sources which were not written by Freeman Dyson. It therefore seems to meet notability requirements, and it is also part of a larger debate. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not the best of articles, but sufficient sources are present to demonstrate notability of the subject, and there is clearly scope for improvement. Jakew 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep per everyone else above. Article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL in the least. Several independent reliable sources exist as well. It's not the best writing on Wikipedia, but that can easily be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • → Snowball keep- has been covered by several independent sources. Being "badly written" alone is not a valid reason for deletion and is a bit rude. We are all just trying to help build the encyclopedia. Every little but helps; there's no need to tell people otherwise, as it is very discouraging. --Boricuaeddie 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep. An article on a concept given serious discussion by eminent scientists is not crystal ball gazing. It can (and should) be cleaned up and expanded. Dbromage [Talk] 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. It's definatly not WP:CRYSTAL. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about something admittedly not accomplished, but the 5 references to scholarly books place it outside WP:CRYSTAL. Edison 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being badly written is NEVER a reason for deletion. Fosnez 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong snowball keep - per everyone else. A need for expansion and a need for clean up are two facets of this article - however, neither are UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES deletion reasons - if they were clean up and stub/expansion tags would be analogous to Speedy Deletion nominations - and you cannot for a second claim that that attitude is justified! This could be a major project for multiple people, but it has potential and is of scientific interest - the references prove this. No grounds for deletion here.Caissa's DeathAngel 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a technical article, not "will there be a Spiderman 4" WP:CRYSTAL speculation — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and improve. Topic is obviously notable, perhaps a rename might help? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It appears I've been snowballed. A rename might help but I still don't think this should be here--Pheonix15 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep arguments do not address concerns. CitiCat ♫ 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyomi Marcela[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless awards/nominations/notability is found Corpx 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. She is a well-known adult film actress. -- Trojanian 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being well-known is not the same as being notable. Epbr123 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve. She is a well-known porn actress. --Kaaveh 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's the evidence that she's well-known? I just knew someone would copy Trojanian's comment if I didn't rebut it straight away. Epbr123 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While she is well-known, that's not quite the same as notable folks. If you're going to argue for her article being kept, you need to provide some evidence of notability. Tabercil 23:40, 3 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 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Relisted because one user expressed strong opposition on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Max[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 47 films, in the porn industry is almost nothing. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. <joke>Although a picture of her could change my vote.</joke> Zouavman Le Zouave 16:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she is noted for beginning a trend in pornography. and that is totally a valid ctiteria to perserve. --Kaaveh 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And exactly what trend is it that she has begun? The article doesn't suggest such a thing. --Evb-wiki 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Half Persian, half French, all trivial. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:09, 15 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 13:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Louie Brewery Company[edit]

Lake Louie Brewery Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local Brewery. No assertion of notability at all, no sources at all on the page, and no reliable sources can be found on google news search New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non notable. ~ Wikihermit 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, doesnt assert notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete, as a major beer afficionado. The problem is that this brewery is not yet notable - but if they are looking to distribute beyond their part of Wisconsin (or if I happen off that way), I look forward to trying some of their brews. Good luck, guys. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nice beer list, bad article. --Gavin Collins 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automativox[edit]

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

Article has been speedy deleted in the past, but has reappeared, so raising an AFD. Article doesn't give any details of notability, per WP:CORP, no mention of it within secondary sources in the article. Had a look myself for such references to avoid the AFD but couldn't find any. Oscarthecat 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business[reply]

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

The result was Bat-merge into the Bat-belt. (I tried to make a cute "holy hannah"-like quip before the template, but the software won't let me. I'm sad. - KrakatoaKatie 10:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batrope[edit]

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

Articles is too insignificant to warrant a seperate entry. Can be best discussed under Batman or Batman's utility belt. Konczewski 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bat-Merge to Batman's utility belt - No reason to have a separate article. --Hnsampat 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Batman's belt has its own article? The Green Lantern just rolled his eyes. MarkBul 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I can has redirected this to image macro. No real sourcing for this, nowhere near the notability of lolcat which is marginal, and Minazo will almost certainly be deleted. ELIMINATORJR 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolrus[edit]

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

A lolrus is a lolcat, only with Walruses. Has none of the references or proof of notability that lolcat has, and that's saying something. Only sources relate to the identity of the animal in the original photo. Previous nom was in May 2004; the deleted revisions are no longer available, but it looks as though the old page was likely unrelated. -- Vary | Talk 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Lolcat (or bucket, one of the two - probably the former works better) - this meme is just one part of the whole lolanimal thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article -- this article provides information explaining a particular meme, its origin, and historical background only relevant to this meme and its relationship to other lol-memes and historical events, namely the elephant seal Minazo and his death in 2006.Aharon 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it can be deletz tiem now plz? No real sources, no indication of significance. Even if these were present, a mention at List of Internet phenomena would be sufficient. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lolcat as per above. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 05:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if we are just merge and keep the content anyway, whats the point of deleting it in the first place? - Fosnez 07:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because then it wouldn't be a proper merge. The point of merging is to salvage small amounts of content from articles that shouldn't exist in their own right. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can has redirect pleez? To lolcat ok? Few reliable secondary sources independent of teh subject = ROFLCOPTER Eleland 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEEDS MOAR RELIABLE SOURCEZ. Redirect (to lolcat). Italiavivi 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Aharon and not paper Cleanup, get some sources. expand. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any suggestion where to find sources, or should we fabricate a few? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why lolrus should not be merged with lolcat is because both lolcat and lolrus are two separate examples of an image macro. In other words, the image macro article is the parent, and both lolrus and lolcat are its children. I can find some more sources, no problem. Another alternative is to create a new article for Minazo, the elephant seal that was the source of the lolrus image macro, and add the relevant lolrus information there. Information under lolcat is only relelvant as another example of an image macro similar in a way to lolcat. I still think we should keep the article though. the lolrus meme and the lolrus saga needs explaining as it is now separate from lolcat.Aharon 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd appreciate a little feedback on which section needs more sources. The sections I added on the origin of the meme have sources.Aharon 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some editing to the page, such that the sources are clearly identified as references in a references section.Aharon 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to encourage you to strike out one or the other of your bolded comments. [9] [10] While editors may make as many comments as they like in an afd, they can only make one bolded recommendation, and adding more than that can be considered vote stacking seen as an attempt to skew the discussion in your favor. Thanks.
I do see that you've created a reference section, but there are still no reliable sources for the phenomenon itself (no, I'm afraid Icanhascheezeburger and the like aren't going to work for our purposes.) As for creating an article on the seal in the original photo (which I see you've already done, but never mind,) you should probably take the time to read through the notability guidelines. We look for reliable sources first, because without them we can't even begin to judge whether or not an article should stay on wikipedia, but that's not the only thing an article needs to survive an afd. -- Vary | Talk 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback and the tip concerning bolded comments -- I apologize and appreciate the correction. Not certain why icanhascheezburger would not be considered a reliable source since it is at the epicenter of the lolrus (and of course, lolcat) phenomena. That site is a relevant source for this article. I'd also add that I am not the sole author of this article. This afd only hit while I was editing and adding to the article.Aharon 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing appears adequate, here. • Lawrence Cohen 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think allow the article to pass WP:WEB? That is, which of the sources are both reliable and feature lolruses as the primary subject? -- Vary | Talk 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:WEB: *Notability "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception... (Notable) content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Lolrus is now the subject of innumerable blog posts, as well as having been referenced in an article in Time Magazine (albert the same article that desribed the lolcat phenomena). While the blog posts may not be considered "reliable sources", the Time Magazine article itself had factual errors (e.g. referring to the lolrus as a walrus instead of as an elephant seal). Right now, this article is the probably the single best source of accurate information on the lolrus on the Internet. Should this article first be published outside wikipedia so that it can then be referenced in a wikipedia article as a reliable source? Obviously (I think), WP:WEB needs to be taken with a grain of salt when considering neologisms and internet memes.Aharon 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this article is the best source (read: praticaclly the only source) of information on the subject is exactly the problem. Nothing should be published here first. And if we took WP:WEB with a 'grain of salt' every time someone creates an article on a meme, we'd be overrun with meme articles. If this meme is such a big deal, there will be plenty of reliable publications that give it more than a name check soon enough, and then it might be appropriate for there to be an article here.
Further, I think you're misreading 'multiple, non-trivial published works' here. The blog mentions are multiple and non-trivial (ie, there are lots of them and they're entirely about the article's subject) but they're not 'published'. The Time magazine is published, but the mention is trivial. That makes lolruses notable enough for a passing mention in other articles (such as lolcat) but not yet worth a whole article. There just isn't enough content out there, as you pointed out. -- Vary | Talk 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or rather, there's plenty of content, but the manner in which it is "published" defines whether or not it is acceptable as a wikipedia article. If this were indeed the case I imagine that there will be many many more articles on wikipedia that will be pruned -- and wikipedia will be less interesting and useful as a result.Aharon 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Yes, I'm sure there are other articles on wikipedia that should not be here for the same reasons that this one should not, but right now we're not talking about those. And if given the choice between being boring in your opinion and publishing what amounts to an original essay on a non-notable meme, I'll take boring and non-trivial any day. -- Vary | Talk 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. My point however was not to indicate that this article is trivial like other articles on wikipedia (that's your subjective opinion). I consider lolrus to be non-trivial like many other wikipedia articles, and it's deletion would make wikipedia less interesting and useful.Aharon 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about my opinion. This article does not satisfy WP:WEB. That's not subjective, it's objective. To satisfy wp:web there would need to be (say it with me) multiple, non-trivial sources from reliable publications. There aren't. Arguing that those problems should be overlooked because the article is useful and 'informative' amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. This meme currently fails wikipedia's notability guidelines. That is why I nominated it for deletion, not because of my personal feelings on the matter. -- Vary | Talk 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple non-trivial sources). Not enough for a featured article or long article, but long enough to be kept certainly. Also redirect Minazo here, the subject of the Warlus meme, and you have more than enough sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minazo (2nd nomination) • Lawrence Cohen 19:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources, and why aren't they in the article? The sources from Minazo are about the animal, not the meme. In order to pass WP:WEB this article needs to have more than one article in a reliable publication (ie not a blog) that is primarily about this specific meme. Right now it doesn't, and pointing at the obit for Minazo is not going to make up for that. -- Vary | Talk 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I HAS A REDIRECT TO LOLCAT! As it has been stated above, it is just another part of the animal macro meme.Zuxtron 03:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, while a lolrus and a lolcat are both image macros, a lolrus is not a lolcat, so it makes no sense to redirect lolrus to lolcat. The lolcat article is not a general article for all animal macro memes.Aharon 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am very impressed by how much this page has improved over the last few days. It is now very well-sourced, allowing the reader to use Wikipedia as a launching-point for more substantial research using traditional media. The Lolrus has clearly moved beyond the internet, and can no longer be considered too trivial to deserve an article. --M@rēino 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced? It is not sourced at all. I'd really like one person who's supported keeping the article to please show exactly how this article passes WP:WEB. What 'traditional media' sources does this article lead the reader to? If your argument for keeping is that you don't care that it doesn't pass the notability guidelines, please say so, but don't point to sources that don't exist as justification. The only reliable source that on the subject is a passing mention in an article on lolcats; that mention, in its entirety:
"The I HAS A BUCKET lolrus, starring a tragic walrus deprived of its only possession, is threatening to spin off into a freestanding meme in its own right."
So the only reliable source that even acknowledges that there is such a thing as a lolrus says that it is threatening to become a separate meme, but isn't one yet. All the 'I like it' in the world isn't going to help that. -- Vary | Talk 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable source that relates directly to the meme is the one liner from the Time article on lolcats. One line in an article about another subject is pretty much the definition of trivial. The others are non-trivial, but they're about the Minazo, not the meme, so they don't fly either. For subject X to pass wp:web, there need to be multiple published sources that are entirely about subject X (and not just about subjects related to X). -- Vary | Talk 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way: if I were to start a blog about my personal opinions on a given political figure, and that blog was mentioned briefly in a longer article on political blogs, I couldn't cite that mention and a bunch of articles on said political figure, and use it to justify starting a wikipedia article on my blog; the first mention is trivial, the second is not about the content itself. So citing sources that relate only to the political figure him or herself might be perfectly appropriate for an article about the blog, to provide context for the opinions it expresses, but they could not be used to pass wp:web. -- Vary | Talk 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright. Well, let's just say that I'm an inclusionist and you're a deletionist. Beyond that philosophical difference, it's hard for me to disagree. --M@rēino 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, there. I am not a deletionist. I'm in favor of deleting the article because it's sourced primarily from blogs and fails wp:web. It's not a 'philosophical' matter. Not to snap at you or anything, but I do not like those labels. Invoking inclusionism/deletionism in an afd debate reduces the argument to "I like it" vs. "I don't like it." -- Vary | Talk 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. No need to resort to labels. Vary's just doing due dilligence on the articles here. Those working to make the lolrus article wikipedia-worthy can be thankful of the work of fellow wiki users (even wiki admins such as Vary) helping to improve the articles. Let's keep this discssion about lolrus and not about Vary, wiki admins, or wikipedia's evolved (in/ex)clusionary guidelines. Basically, Vary thinks that since the lolrus (itself) hasn't been the subject of its own article (independent of lolcats, i.e. what she calls "sourced") that it is trivial. In other words, she is saying that if lolrus was the subject of a few articles in the print media, that it would meet the notability guidlines in WP:WEB, that it would properly be recognized as non-trivial, and thus no longer under threat of imminent deletion. Correct? Meanwhile, other folks here are arguing to keep the article on the basis that the sources provided in the context of the lolrus article concerning the origin of the lolrus are sufficient to meet WP:WEB for the whole lolrus article (and thus non-trivial). Having said that, I agree with rēino that the article meets WP:WEB in that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The objection to Vary's argument isn't personal -- it simply finds Vary's approach to WP::WEB to be overly strict, in regards to lolrus but I think that is because her argument is focused on *a* lolrus as *a type*, instead of as *the* lolrus as *a meme* with an origin and context that has been sourced in all of the media prviously mentioned in the above arguments (and referenced in the article). Nothing personal! Aharon 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you consider non-trivial published works about the content iteslf, please? The sources on the 'context' of the meme are not about the meme, they're about the same thing the meme is about. So your opinion that they allow the content to pass wp:web seems to be based on a flawed understanding of that guideline. -- Vary | Talk 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is definitely based on a different understanding of that guideline. The "non-trivial" sources: music CDs by Merzbow, the untimely death of Minazo reported in the Japan Times, and finally, the mention in Time and slate.com. Contrary to your view, I believe that the context of the meme is indeed about the meme. Since this subtle point is the core disagreement in our argument, I think we may be at an impasse until a source is generated that fulfills your understanding of the WP:WEB guideline.Aharon 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is exactly one reliable source that even mentions the word 'lolrus.' None of those sources you've mentioned are about the content any more than an article on George Bush is about a blog expressing personal opinions of him. Those guidelines were very carefully written so that there can be no problems with interpretation, and by saying that your 'understanding' of the guideline permits sources about the identity of the animal in the photograph allow the meme to pass wp:web you seem to be overlooking a key phrase: the content itself. . -- Vary | Talk 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is because the lolrus existed prior to being called the lolrus. Originally the lolrus was simply Minazo performing his trademark pose with bucket. Minazo became notable as soon as Merzbow made a tribute album to him, and then additionally so when his images became the inspiration for the lolrus saga. Would you merge lolrus with Minazo?Aharon 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might be in favor of that merge, if Minazo was notable, but that article is well on its way to being deleted. Are you in favor of merging to Minazo? If your argument is that this article is really about an animal, and not a meme, then will you accept that this article should be deleted if the article on the animal is?
Notability is not inherited. The albums may or may not pass wp:music, I haven't checked too closely. But either way, the notability of a work does not automatically transfer to its subject, as evidenced by the afd debate on said subject. And it certainly does not make a meme about their subject notable.
Your argument here seems to be recursive; the meme is notable because its about a notable animal, who is notable because there's a meme about him. The sources you are using to claim that the article passes wp:web are only relevant to the article Minazo; and even there, consensus seems to be that they're not enough to establish notability. This article is not about the animal: see the opening sentence: "A Lolrus is an image macro with a picture of a whiskered sea mammal often referencing a wistful relationship with a bucket." The intro doesn't even mention the animal. This article is about the meme. Any sources used to prove its notability also need to be about that meme. That is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. -- Vary | Talk 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article to my mind is about both the meme and the animal. One should not be separated from the other. The irony is that Minazo died a famous performance animal in captivity and was resurrected as a famous albeit anonymous meme. With the deletion of this article (and the Minazo article), his bucket will indeed be lost...Aharon 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's about both of them, then both of them need to be sourced. But your argument that 'Minazo is the lolrus' is spurious: the into to the article does not even mention Minazo. The image currently in the article isn't even of him. And how many of these are of Minazo?
But even if 'Lolrus' and 'Minazo' were synonymous, it's irrelevant if the Minazo sources are not even enough to prop up Minazo. This AFD is a mess and will very likely end in a no consensus once someone gets around to closing it, but there still hasn't been any reason given for keeping the article other than "I Like It!" or a claim that it's well sourced that isn't backed up by any actual sources. So I ask you again: since the only solid sources that have been provided relate only to Minazo, and not to his 'second life' as a meme, will you agree that this article should be deleted as non-notable if the article Minazo, which uses the same sources, is? -- Vary | Talk 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles should be kept, obviously. Minazo is the ur-lolrus. All later lolruses simply continue the saga of the lolrus with the likeness of Minazo and his bucket. In platonic terms, there is only one true form of the lolrus, all others are variations on the theme of the first lolrus. This is why a saga exist for the lolrus which stems from the first lolrus. Perhaps this needs to be clarified in the article?Aharon 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless something extremely unexpected happens, Minazo will not be kept. This one may be kept by default just because of the sheer weight of more or less unsupported 'keep' arguments, but the meme still fails wp:web, and no amount of selective interpretation of that guideline is going to change the fact. You can 'clarify' all you want, but it's not going to fix the complete absence of any verifiability for the word 'lolrus'. -- Vary | Talk 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? You're not saying anything new and your comments are getting more and more absurd. It was amusing for a while, but I'm frankly tired of watching you trying to make something so completely inane sound important (and talk your way around the lack of references) by using impressive-sounding words: talking about platonic idealism and calling Minazo the 'ur-lolrus', of all things? You're a very silly person and I'm not going to talk to you anymore. -- Vary | Talk 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know I started it but it was very much intended as a stub and, having just come back to read what it's become, i've learnt a lot which i'm sure a lot of other people will also be interested in. I feel it now has easily enough information on the lolrus phenomenon to be worth a whole article, and i really dont think it should be merged with lolcat because, while it may have had its origins in lolcats, it is now very much its own meme with its own conventions. Bjakt 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about how much information the article has, but about whether that information is sourced, which it isn't. -- Vary | Talk 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article already has more references than Christiaan Barnard. Wikipedia's standards for references and notability are essentially arbitrary and meaningless. People might be interested in the lolrus meme; server space is cheap, ergo, you should keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.93.73 (talk) 05:16, 5 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 by clear consensus. In the end, it came down to this: if this were any kind of referenced, detailed analysis of the impact Bruce Lee had on different cultures around the world in different decades and years, that would be one thing, but that's not what this article is. Instead, it's a hodge-podge list, no doubt incomplete, of various times his name has been mentioned on TV or film or print. It's not educational, it's not helpful, and it's not encyclopedic. KrakatoaKatie 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee and popular culture[edit]

Bruce Lee and popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A cluttered trivial list that seems poorly sourced as well. Sourcing can be fixed: but overall this type of list isn't very useful. A list of very random mention isn't notable. Perhaps this would be better at a Bruce Lee wiki (if one exists) ? RobJ1981 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of information in a loosely-associated list. Useight 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another culturecurft list. Realkyhick 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ok, Bruce Lee has been mentioned in some movies, it doesn't mean there needs to be listcruftic page about it. Dannycali 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More trivia-ish only article.--JForget 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per loosely associated topics/trivia Corpx 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was expanded from a section of Bruce Lee article. If this article is deleted, then such "trivia" information would start to pop up eventually on main Bruce Lee article. --RockyMM 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping junk off the main page is not a reason to keep this so-called article. Dannycali 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the argument given for deletion are : a/ not useful--irrelevant, we provide information, not practical advice. b/ 'cluttered" I interpret that as meaning contains a good deal of content, I fail to see how the organization or lack of it in an article is a reason for deletion. c/ "poorly sourced" but the nom. admits it can be fixed. d/ "trivial" -- anyone can say that about anything -- it will be trivial to some people and not others, so it amounts to IDONTLIKEIT e/ "very random mentions" either that means a desire for more complete content, or a statement that some of the information is more important than others, both editing questions.DGG (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK... so what's your argument for keeping the article. ILIKEIT? You don't give any rationale whatsoever. -- Kicking222 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why I don't personally like it, actually. I couldn't care less about BL, or about the part of popular culture influenced by his work. I'm one of the unenlightened who have never actually seen his films, and hope to never see one. But I know the many articles in WP on them show how they are important to many WPedians and that they are within our scope. So WP should cover them, and the significant things about them. The significant things about a movie include the references to other films. (and similarly for other media), and their reception by the public. Their importance is shown by their mention in reviews--which do have to be added--or do you truly doubt reviews compare with other films? Things of significance in the world are encyclopedic if there is enough information to write an article. WP is a general encyclopedia covering what I like and what I dont like. And if you want to see how I apply this to things I know about more, look at the other AfDs. There have been more than enough of them and I've said enough too, more than should have been necessary. The deletors repeat the same arguments each time--does that mean I should paste in the same words also? I am not responsible for adding all the necessary content to WP, so dont suggest i must do so. But I have do feel a certain responsibility to try to prevent wanton destruction. DGG (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what does it matter to all those sayin delete if this part of bruce lee is kept it doesnt affet you and hell i found it to be really good and interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.249.8 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bunch of unrelated, unnecessary, non-notable trivia. If this was an article about Bruce Lee's actual impact on pop culture, then we'd be looking at a different issue. But this is simply a loose collection of characters that have some of Lee's qualities and films that mention him. That's not the type of article we need on WP, and I'd argue that there is absolutely nothing (or, at least, next-to-nothing) that would even be worth merging into his main article. -- Kicking222 02:22, 1 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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and other religions[edit]

Scientology and other religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Scientologycruft and possible POV fork, as some of this material originally came from the Scientology article (where it was already in dispute). This article takes Scientology, props it up and makes it stand there as we go through a seemingly random list of religions, one at a time, and basically does little more than state that each of them have said negative things about Scientology at one time or another. (Well, duh.) I could do the same thing with, say, Woody Allen and other actors, or Britney Spears and other pop stars. It's flawed from its basic fundamental premise. wikipediatrix 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I wanted to summarize it in the Scientology article because the article itself was too long. I didn't disput the content of the section. It was a consensus there to move the content into a new article to reduce the size of the Scientology article. This article is mainly criticle because it is from the section "Controversy and Critism". If it would be deleted here it may be introduced in the Scientology article again what only stresses the length of the Scientology article wich is already too long. -- Stan talk 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It looks like there is significant referencing and notability here. (10) references and it is a most intriguing read as well. Shinealight2007 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. Disguised POV fork. Realkyhick 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POV fork with issues of original research, and seems to be somewhat promotional in nature. Almost weasel flavored. Best left on the Scientology web site, and kept off of Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to keep. I'm still not sure where the rules lie on this, and my concerns about OR and POV still stand - but if there are rules against forking like this, I'm more than happy to ignore them given these circumstances. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - a consensus was already established to create this new article here. The argument "POV fork" is ridiculous because a lot of critical stuff was removed from the Scientology article due to establishing this article and summarization there is only possible as long we don't delete the content here. Alleged POV in this article can be corrected instead of deleting everything.-- Stan talk 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid point, but I'll reserve the right to change my mind pending whether this concensus you note can be accepted for the purpose. I'm all for it, but I'm not sure what policy sez about it. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ideally, however, this should be renamed, as the phrase "other religions" makes Scientology sound like a religion.(RookZERO 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You are WAY out of line here. Your opinion of Scientology's validity (or not) as a religion is irrelevant to this AfD. wikipediatrix 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually relevant, as such. Wikipedia needs to present a worldview, and as such, be cognizant of the characterizations of not just the United States, but also of other such relevant countries with regard to the organization of Scientology as Germany, France, England, etc. Shinealight2007 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's not really that relevant. Wikipediatrix' point here was pretty well outlined - and the scope of this AfD is not to decide whether Scientology is a religion, regardless of how others feel about it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think RookZero's point was probably moreso that the title of this article could be changed, not to establish anything about the Scientology organization within this AfD. Shinealight2007 02:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. AfDs not infrequently retitle articles where appropriate. That might be called for here. It might be more in line with a global perspective, in which Scientology is often considered a philosophy (ie in Israel), a for-profit business (ie Britain, Germany, et al), or a banned cult (ie Greece et al). Simply calling it a religion assumes that US tax status is equivalent to an end of all other views.(RookZERO 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed, this is true, but general rule is that a move should be kept in the talk page of an article. My opinion here is that we should talk about whether this fork can stand on its own, and then if it can, then we can discuss whether this name or another is appropriate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article seems to be two articles cohabitating: 1 about Scientology's purported position on the ability to be a member in good standing of it and another religion, and 2 about what other religions' views are of Scientology. If kept, it should be split because those are really very different topics to an external viewer (I don't know much about Scientology, but what a religion's precepts are should be a wholly different article than what other religions' views of those precepts are or of the religion in general). Sources could likely be found for similarly negative reactions from most of the other religions about Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, and no doubt many more. Carlossuarez46 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's true that this material doesn't belong in the main Scientology article, since it is basically about the beliefs of other religious organizations with regards to Scientology. However, it is reasonably well-cited, with references to scholarly articles, media sources, and legal documents. The matter is prima facie notable, since it has been repeatedly covered in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the proposal to delete it is mere capitulation to (if not cooperation with) the Church of Scientology's continuing efforts to whitewash the facts of its history. Wikipedia does not cooperate with an organization's desire to whitewash its reputation. --FOo 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is deemed appropriate, but I do not see a need to comparehow one religion thinks about another religion. This inherently leads to synthesis Corpx 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is not so much about "how one religion thinks about another religion" but more about the claim that Scientology is compatible with other religions. I agree that we don't need an article wich states that parishioners of one religion don't belief in stuff from another religion but the claim of compatibility may be worth mentioning.-- Stan talk 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are articles like Hinduism and other religions and Islam and other religions, so there is certainly room for an article even beyond debunking the claims of compatibility.(RookZERO 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Both the articles you mention are atrociously written, filled with unsourced material and OR, and littered with multiple complaint tags from multiple editors. Just because Bad Article X currently exists doesn't mean Bad Article Y gets a free pass. wikipediatrix 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scientology is too big a subject to be contained in one article, therefore it is necessary to create forks. That some forks will appear to be POV is in the nature of subject matter such as this, and merging with related content (if such could be found) will only cause confusion. LessHeard vanU 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona bowie[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. No sources provided, cannot verify; only relevant Google hit is her own website (which, curiously, isn't linked in this article). Article appears to be promotional. Realkyhick 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nomination withdrawn, move to keep. Numerous relevant and reliable sources have been provided and properly cited, and notability now seems to be apparent. Barring any objections, I ask that this discussion be administratively closed. Realkyhick 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to this page that dispute the above comment by Realkyhick. Relevant google hits provided. Bibliography added. Recent Exhibition History added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliphost005 (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm a bit curious as to how you came to that conclusion from the user name, but in any event the author is apparently a single-purpose account. Realkyhick 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be perhaps that the name "Sliphost" actually appears in the article? Just a guess :) --WebHamster 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You copied and pasted in some other site's words. That has been removed. Corvus cornix 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The submitted references, although none of them give in-depth reviews on her work, do demonstrate that her work has been included in various exhibitions. There doesn't seem to be any under her own name but rather as a part of larger exhibitions, hence the 'weak keep'.--WebHamster 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've gone through and did an initial cleanup/wikification, including moving the article to its proper name, and formating the refs (note, rough format only, they need to be gone through more carefully and put into WP:CITET format). Given the quanity of exhibitions plus her other activities (curating, teaching, writing), backed up by numerous refs, I believe that this easily meets our notability standards. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes indeed, a major improvement from the original article. As you can see above, I've withdrawn the nomination. Realkyhick 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Akradecki. Exhibition record and third-party references are sufficient for notability. COI issues aside, it's looking better. Freshacconci 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Idiots[edit]

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

Delete unsourced non-notable movies, was tagged speedy but movies aren't in the A7 bucket. Carlossuarez46 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. And I wish movies were in the A7 bucket. Realkyhick 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is basically a series of home movies, and home movies are not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your name is Pamela Anderson of course :) --WebHamster 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at once. I don't get why movies (and records, ...) aren't in the speedy criteria, as this one has no reason for surviving here even for five days. Fram 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was purge. DS 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beat Movie[edit]

Contested prod, tagged speedy because "Blatantly non-notable film (entire article speaks of non-notability); plot summary is nonsensical; apparent vanity page (article created, maintained, and defended by a user who is credited as scriptwriter/cameraman/actor for the movie, with few contributions from others); two previous PRODs have been reverted without discussion or explanation, one by an anonymous user, one by the aforementioned user.", I declined speedy because movies are technically not A7 candidates, but I agree that this is nn and should be deleted Carlossuarez46 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Screams of an amateur film, created by filmmakers as vanity page. As the project was never even filmed, it seems pointless to have an article on it.Tx17777 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

you idiots it was partly filmed (roughly 1/4 done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.226.199 (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, though, as noted, references and cleanup would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thornlea Secondary School[edit]

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

For a long time the article has failed WP:NOR, and they're non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless third-party sources can be found to address the nominator's valid concerns. Jakew 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete common garden-variety secondary school - not notable. MarkBul 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep badly in need of refs/pruning, but that is no reason to delete a page. High schools are unquestionably enecyclopedic subjects. - SimonP 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question Frankly, I've often wondered whether schools deserve their own articles -- often for precisely this sort of reason: abundant OR and a general absence of citations and sources. But is someone proposing a wholesale closeout of school articles? If so, be prepared for a great hue and cry. If not, what differentiates this article from a thousand like it? As celebrated jurist Lionel Hutz once put it, "There are plenty of people just as guilty as my client: why pick on him"? --Rrburke(talk) 19:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WAX: Lots of articles exist that shouldn't. This one really deserves to be deleted. GreenJoe 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While in principle I agree, I wish you looooooooooots of luck getting any kind of consensus to delete schools. Bearcat 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but severely rewrite. I think we've established by convention that high schools are notable by default, but this article has major, major OR problems and is way too long for a school of this stature. Realkyhick 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that will get done. It's been tagged many times. GreenJoe 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also be open to deleting the article (to get rid of the history) and re-creating as a stub. GreenJoe 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Where is the evidence for consensus to keep all schools? All cities are notable - all streets are not. Without an explicit statement, the burden is on the article to prove notability. MarkBul 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. An established precedent does effectively count as de facto policy, even in the absence of an explicit policy statement, unless someone can come up with a convincing reason why the article in question doesn't qualify under the precedent. Bearcat 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking any verification of notability with reliable, independent sources. VanTucky (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a Google search indicates that the article is perfectly expandable and verifiable. There is enough within the article that is notable. TerriersFan 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article needs improvement but that is not a reason to delete the article. -- DS1953 talk 05:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable alumni are sufficient to justify a high school as being notable. DGG (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per alumni - Fosnez 07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is in need of a cleanup but a search indicates it can potentially pass WP:N and WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris 10:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Eusebeus 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though it needs some cleanup, reasonably notable school. It serves a large student body (1800), and book was written about it, as well as chapter in an organizational development book. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable by virtue of being a school, and for some of the specific achievements listed above. Needs work, not deletion. --Gpollock 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep article makes explicit claims of notability, and there are reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Article needs to be significantly pruned and reformatted to put it into a more encyclopedic tone and in Wikipedia format. Alansohn 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It certainly is notable as it was a prototype school in the whole region to minimize outside distraction (but this design failed). Last year's top graduating student scores the highest in the York Region. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. I was under the impression that notability isn't inherited. Doesn't this apply to the alumni-school relationship? --Bfigura (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep per Alansohn. --Bfigura (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A view of the other participants in this and other similar AfDs will show that this impression is mostly incorrect. It is true that attendance at a notable school, such as this one, does not make all alumni of the school notable. However, there is very clear consensus that one factor in demonstrating the notability of a school is the notability of its alumni. A school, especially a high school like this one, plays a crucial role in establishing and molding the future notable, be it as a politician, athlete, scientist, actor or musician. Contrary to the argument espoused by an adamant, but very small, minority, it is explicitly the school's role in fashioning notable alumni that is one of the many factors that demonstrates a school's notability. After all, the school isn't "inheriting" notability; it's a big part of creating the notability in the first place. Alansohn 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I'm willing to accept that. (So long as it's not a "This is where Famous Person X went" article, which this doesn't appear to be. --Bfigura (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is true that some editors use notable, ahem "notable" alum to justify keeping these otherwise wholly unnotable schools, but it is a logical contrivance, pablum and little else besides. Unless there is a clear, substantive correlation between an individual's notability and their school (and at that point it matters little what level), this is a false argument. Absent consensus on high school notability (and there is no consensus in any language wikipedia that high schools are notable), this is the kind of masquerade that gets trotted out. Eusebeus 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never liked the consensus in favour of high schools (they're generally about as inherently notable as my bedroom), but as long as the consensus is what it is, I haven't seen a convincing reason to treat this article differently from any of the others. Keep. Bearcat 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this bad article on this proven-notable school. This one meets WP:Notability hands down. And I am not going to make a tasteless joke about the notability of Bearcat's bedroom. I am not going to make a tasteless joke about the notability of Bearcat's bedroom. I am not ... Noroton 15:29, 2 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 Speedy delete - No sources, so this comes down to an unsourced attack page on Drogba.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drogbaism[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism. Epbr123 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merged by sgeureka (talk · contribs) and redirected, a perfectly appropriate move that is probably better than a straight keep. — Scientizzle 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional universe of Carnivàle[edit]

Fictional universe of Carnivàle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - fails WP:PLOT. Otto4711 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible keep for now as article creator. Reason: This article hasn't existed very long, and I'm currently putting my effort into making Carnivàle a featured article and couldn't really pay much attention to expanding the show's subarticles. As I've said in the FAC nom, I deliberately moved all of the plot to this subpage because of the extremely spoilery storyline of the show – have a look at Carnivàle, and you'll see that there is no plot section, just a plot introduction. And since I think it's stupid to create episode articles for this show (as the sourced(!) intro sentence of this article says), I opted to create a "Fictional universe" article where all 24 episodes are shortly summarized and, when finished, are accompanied by comment and analysis by both creators and reviewers. See my current collection of reviewers' opinions here, here and here in my userspace where I'm doing most of my work on the articles in order to not interrupt the subarticles by work-in-progress info drops. If someone thinks that I was not able to produce a good referenced and encyclopedic article in maybe two months, then go ahead and re-nominate this article, but as it is now, no. If you (general you) don't know what others felt was important to this show before I started working on the main article, see here.– sgeureka t•c 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this is userfied and taken out of article space then that is satisfactory pending continued work on it to bring in real-world significance and sourced analysis. If you're agreeable to that solution and a passing admin wants to userfy the article and close this nomination then that works for me. Otto4711 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Longish) Reply. Is there really the need or hurry to take the whole article out of wiki main space? I mean, the current accepted guideline is that episode summaries should be limited to 500 words per hour. The whole article including the current sourced analysis is currently 6500 words, a far cry from the allowed 24*500=12000 words. And there is not much wiki resistance in having hundreds and thousands of episode articles with almost always just plot summaries (Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes, and my personal favorite Lost (Season 1), heck, even Category:Band of Brothers episodes for a 10 episode show). Because of Carnivàle being the type of show it is, I decided to be a provident wikipedian and only (reluctanty) split off material from the main article when WP:SIZE applied, resulting in 4 new articles where I knew that two might be on shaky notability ground for some weeks. Does this article require some work? I'm not denying it. Is there enough secondary material? Seems so. Is there a dedicated person to work on the article? Yes (how more dedicated can a wikipedian get if he works an article up to WP:FAC status?). BTW, it's perfectly possible that even I will feel in a few weeks that this article should be split or merged into other subarticles (eg. I already thought of merging the Genealogy section to Characters of Carnivàle and the "Route of the carnivale" section to List of Carnivàle episodes), but as wikipedia is a wiki with allegedly no time limit, I can't predict what (new) options will come up for this article that everyone will be comfortable with. So unless there is unanimous agreement to delete this article with all the info I've provided, I do not really favor userfying the article as it would severely hurt both the Carnivàle main article and the (my) wiki process in the meantime. – sgeureka t•c 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A reasonable compromise might be to keep this for now but reassess it for potential deletion in a couple of week's time. That will give Sgeurekat the opportunity to see where it fits after further work is done on the main Carnivàle article. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because well-referenced, well-organized, and with lots of good images. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The program did in fact have a complicated plot arc in a universe of good and evil, and the potential viewer or Wikipedia reader is ill-served by mere plot summaries of each episode. The usual problem is that the writing is all original research, but it appears the article creators have relied on sources such as published interviews with the show's producer and other materials. Edison 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an attempted description of a fictional world. There already exists Characters of Carnivàle which expands on the characters of the show - The rest is just pure plot summary Corpx 06:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If you want to cover a work of fiction in an encyclopedic manner, of course you have to describe/summarize the plot (and the related fictional world) somewhere. Now that {{spoiler}} tags are as much as officially banned from wikipedia, you can't just mix in the plot (especially of a complex serial like Carnivàle) into the main article any longer. And summarizing/describing the whole overarching plot in a list article about the characters does not seem feasible to me. So what other options are there to summarize the plot and main elements of a show like this? Have an article for each episode - I already explained above why this is not suitable. Split the article/plot into Carnivàle (Season 1) and Carnivàle (Season 2) - not really suitable because per the producers, two seasons make up one "book". Rename the article into Carnivàle (Book 1) - not really suitable because only one of the planned three books was produced. So I chose the name Fictional universe of Carnivàle. (If someone can think of a better title, shoot. I thought about this for a week and couldn't come up with something better than the current title.) The last question is whether the plot itself is notable enough and written about enough to be covered on wikipedia, and the answer seems to point to yes. The plot of the show has been sufficiently covered by independent reviewers both online (see my userspace links above) and in print (eg. TV Zone Issues 168-172, 187, 188, 191, 193; I only have Issue 172 where three Carnivàle episodes received a two page coverage, so I guess the coverage was similar in the other magazine issues). – sgeureka t•c 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very informative - Fosnez 07:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could use better referencing in terms of published, reliable third-party sources, but its perspective is surprisingly real world oriented and provides information beyond a simple plot summary. This is an admittedly weak rationale, but I like the article despite the fact that I'm something of a WP:WAF "zealot". —AldeBaer 13:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is an exemplar of the content that makes wikipedia vital to the ordinary user such as myself. Where else could this information be found? Without wikipedia I would go through life with far more nagging questions unresolved. Such content deserves to be perpetuated.-Jabrim 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note as article creator: The content of this article will be merged to all the other Carnivàle articles in the next few minute/hours, and this article will/should remain as {{R from merge}}. I have shared my thoughts about this procedure at Talk:Fictional universe of Carnivàle#Future of this article. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 08:11, 3 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 speedy delete. --Coredesat 08:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Whitecloaks[edit]

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

Unless someone can drastically improve this article to make it something bordering useful, this contains no information whatsoever and, from my limited knowledge of the books, is unlikely ever to. Possible merge with Minor Wheel of Time characters if anyone knows of any examples. Tx17777 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No context whatsoever, no notability. Realkyhick 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this has zero context, and if there are minor characters among the Whitecloaks who are notable enough to be mentinoed, they should be included in the minor characters article as mentioned above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD tagged as no-context Corpx 06:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as A7. The JPStalk to me 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vernick[edit]

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

An article on a poet who is published by the vanity press AuthorHouse. Fails WP:BIO. The creation of a WP:SPA. Victoriagirl 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. How on earth did this not get speedied? Totally non-notable, unsourced, spam, you name it. Realkyhick 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of 3rd party coverage Corpx 06:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of 3rd party coverage, closest mention is on a press release site. Ealdgyth | Talk 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. So tagged. Not even true (Even I had a poem published younger than that and I wasn't exactly a child prodigy) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a copyvio. --Coredesat 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Mangos[edit]

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

This article doesn't have any sources listed, is written rather poorly and should have been speedy deleted. None the less should be deleted. Xtreme racer 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I declined to speedy because the article asserted notability, so was inelegible for CSD. Eleven years as a senior news anchor? If this was a U.S. TV anchor (ie, Dan Rather), he wouldn't be here. Lack of refs is not an AfD reason, but rather a reason to post a {{Unreferenced}} and maybe a cleanup tag. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability seems to be pretty well established, and a google search turns up a truckload of relevant pages, so I'm sure the necessary sources exist. The writing itself could use some work, but that's no reason for deletion. Calgary 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It's eligible for CSD as a copyvio of the subject's web site with no assertion of permission. The subject is notable but this isn't the way to do it. Also COI. The page was created by Megistimedia (talk · contribs) - Megisti Media is the name of Mangos' consultancy and production company. Dbromage [Talk] 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep thanks to the work of Kizor. Fram 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animecon (Finland)[edit]

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

I reluctantly bring this Finish anime convention up for AfD, but other then one article which only briefly mentions the convention, I have been unable to track down additional reliable secondary sources that would allow the article to meet to notability criteria at WP:N or WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as having a notability problem since January 2007. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would help if we had some information on just how big this convention is. It says "biggest in Finland", but that on its own means nothing. I for one have no idea how popular anime is in Finland. If the convention only attracts 10 visitors a year, then I'd say delete, but if its say 500 or more, than a keep and expand would be more appropriate. Tx17777 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its because of that claim that keeps this article being an A7 speedy deletion. The problem is, beyond the brief mention in the article I linked to above, there are no other reliable secondary sources to build an encyclopedic article from, much else establish its notability per WP:N and WP:ORG. --Farix (Talk) 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It attracts several thousand visitors. --Kizor 09:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. No good sources have been found. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Anybody here involved in Anime in Finland, or even Europe at all? If so, they might be able to find more sources. I know I wouldn't have any idea where to look. I'm sure this isn't a Dragoncon or Comicon, but it might be something. Have they had any major guests? FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the sources attesting the notability are found Corpx 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Please do not delete the content, yet, but merge with Finncon. Read the article. It is part of the larger Con, and while notable by itself, is part of a 9,000-person con, one of the largest in the world. I'll be bold and copy the relevant material to the other page. Then go ahead and delete to your hearts' non-content. ;-) Bearian 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., folks, delete it if you wish. I've merged them, so the content is now redundent. Bearian 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by Kizor to fulfill the Heymann standard. Bearian 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As apparently the only one here who speaks Finnish and is thus able to read the great majority of available information and sources, I believe my word should count for (is chased off the public computer at the library where he was searching for magazines on the subject (all checked out), will continue at home. sigh.) --Kizor 15:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Finncon as already merged by User:Bearian. JIP | Talk 08:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, I rewrote the article, bringing into it the breadth and depth of most convention articles. I finally succeeded in tracking down the relevant issues of Anime magazine and integrated them as printed sources. This changes the issue completely - the discussion was never about whether we should have an article on this topic, but whether its then-current form was acceptable, and it hinged on a lack of improvements. We should now reconsider, rather than base the decision on circumstances that no longer apply.
    Now, as for merging, Animecon and Finncon are very much separate. Apparently Bearian, who can't read Finnish, got the idea that they're one from the one link in the nomination? A reasonable conclusion in the circumstances, but wrong. The two share premises but few subjects and no events, not even opening ceremonies, and each gets a large segement of non-overlapping visitors. They're organized by separate groups, comparable in size and referred to as two separate conventions, including by the press and the leading Finnish news agency. (I checked. I could get a cite but that would get even more excessive than this paragraph.) --Kizor 16:09, 4 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to close a swimming pool[edit]

How to close a swimming pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete was originally tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of the linked page, but the author asserts permission, any way - WP is not a how-to guide which is basically what this article is. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Tx17777 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a how-to guide, and an unsourced (self-described) essay/article. ◄Zahakiel► 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What the hell kind of article is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.32.227 (talk) 18:08, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
One about swimming pools. And how to close them. Lugnuts 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP:NOT#GUIDE "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. " Need I say anymore? Calgary 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced how-to. Jakew 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced how-to and copyvio, and do not move to wikibooks; editor who created the page claims to own the rights, but as far as I can tell that has not been confirmed, and the web site where the content is hosted contains an assertion of copyright. -- Vary | Talk 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, single-sourced how-to, obvious copy-and-paste from somewhere. Realkyhick 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definite violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Article is not sourced and not written in an encyclopedic tone; actually, it's not an encyclopedic topic. Useight 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • uber mega delete This article violates oh so many policies, its hard to know where to start. WP:NOT#GUIDE for starters. The editor even claims the article was written by himself which would probably turn into WP:OWN. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic and reads more like a guide than an article (and it is). AR Argon 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on all counts. Wasted Time R 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiki is not a guide and also smells like a copy/paste version.--JForget 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Dbromage [Talk] 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:OR, poorly written/essay, includes some sort of copyright notice, and author signed on the page itself. This is not good. OSbornarf 03:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (Edit: Possible legal problems because of that copyright notice. OSbornarf 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - topic is already covered in an encyclopedic manner in Swimming pool#Winterization. I don't have to repeat that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the above. ♠TomasBat 16:43, 1 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 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flash (book)[edit]

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

belatedly contested prod, nn anthology Carlossuarez46 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Book has many highly notable contributors (Rick Moody, Mitch Cullin, Steve Almond, etal), has received some press and notice in largish publications, benefits one of the world's largest charities. Seems notable to me. It does need the sources and references cleaned up and fixed though 63.76.154.130 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources, no references, non-notable book that does not need its own entry. Wouldn't even merit a sentence in any of the notable authors' entries much less that of the charity. THF 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually many sources exist. I'm in the process of tracking them down and adding them to the article, but it will take several days. Bookmankilz 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable third-party sources can be found. The current bunch are woefully inadequate: mostly blogs, and a BBC link that doesn't appear to mention the subject, let alone give non-trivial coverage. Jakew 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, can't be verified. Realkyhick 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article that says almost nothing except that "it's an anthology" and "here are the authors" Mandsford 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rick Moody, Mitch Cullin, or the other names dropped above didn't author or edit this book, they sent the editor manuscripts, presumably when asked to do so. One or two actually famous contributors to a work -- especially when it's unclear HOW they contributed -- means bupkis for overall notability. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Calton's comment above is asinine. He seems to be arguing that the authors of a book are not the authors of that book. If you choose to argue that their contributions don't make the book notable, then that would be fine, but this line of reasoning really isn't. A book may have multiple authors (authors being the creators of a written work). If the contents of a book are written by 10 people, then that book has ten authors (although likely only one editor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 13:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


I find it curious that someone deletes the votes to keep. 138.210.199.70 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as a repost after an AfD closed only a few days ago. Recreating the article with a slightly different title is not the right solution, and declining a speedy and restarting an AfD is even less correct. Take it to WP:DRV if you have any procedural objections.Fram 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My GRAIN[edit]

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

Was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyGRAIN. Was reposted and deleted as repost. Speedy declined today as meeting assertion of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They need to be kept. Last time they were deleted for a bad reason. No harm can come from keeping them. The only thing that could be changed is that the name of the band is myGRAIN, not My GRAIN.Morspecs911 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, 1 album doesn't cut it, and nothing has changed in the last few days since this was deleted. Should have been speedied under G4. But since it keeps coming back, blocking recreation may be in order here. Carlossuarez46 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So they shouldn't be able to have a wikipedia page because they haven't had a secound album yet? Morspecs911 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about "having a wikipedia page". This is no Facebook. This is an encyclopedia, with very precise criteria about admitting an article (not a "page") on a subject. --Goochelaar 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they can't have an article in a free encyclopedia because they only have one album, and people don't think they are notable? 71.114.32.227 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed over and over. If the article doesn't meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC, then no, they can't "have" an article. Oli Filth 18:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "free encyclopedia" in the sense that "it's free for anyone to have a page". They fail our guidelines for the inclusion of musical groups and artists. They only have one album, which is insufficient for criterion 5. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename Sufficiently notable for a band. --Djsasso 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? There is nothing that I can see on the article page that meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Oli Filth 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like easy case - non-notable. If and when they become notable, a new page can be created. 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBul (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete and salt per CSD G4 - the article was previously AfD'd as MyGRAIN, and subsequently speedied twice. Author has made no attempt to address WP:MUSIC, even after repeated prompting on Talk:MyGRAIN. Quite probable use of socks to remove speedy tags as well. Oli Filth 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any claim to notability, not even in their website, apart from they giving some gig and some song being aired by some non-notable radio. --Goochelaar 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnotable, fails WP:MUSIC. Salt seems advised. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article cannot justify its noteability in my opinion, further to the sparse website, therefore delete. If the band suddenly become the next beatles the page can always be re-creates. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. It would be a good idea to put the references cited in this AfD into the article. Tyrenius 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja (band)[edit]

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

Speedy declined. Despite multiple albums that sold in the hundreds (not a typo), it still fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:BAND, and WP:V. Jauerback 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:Music. Has been on international tours and has released many albums. --Djsasso 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written, with no independent references, it's a delete. I found one review on Pitchfork. The other Web mentions seem insignificant. If someone comes up with better references I'd reconsider. Without proof of international touring they have no chance. MarkBul 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC - albums selling in the hundreds is not notable. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oooooh, sales in the hundreds! Contact Billboard Magazine immediately, it's number 1 with a bullet! OK, more like number 451,908 with a lead weight. Totally non-notable. Realkyhick 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't track any decent refs indicating that they're doing enough to generate notability right now. A couple more albums selling better might help. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Above -FlubecaTalk 21:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:Music. Toured internationally, coverage in Wire, Terrorizer, Decibel, among others. Last Alien8 release charted in the Top 10 of the Metal Charts on Canadian college radio charts: http://www.chartattack.com/charts/specialty/metal/oldtopten/2007/0413.txt 74.99.227.236 02:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC) — 74.99.227.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep, has anyone actually bothered looking for sources? The IP is absolutely right. And in answer to your mockery of the 'hundreds' of albums sold; this is ambient doom metal, of course the albums aren't multi-platinum. It has been covered three times in Decibel magazine and here in Terrorizer, two of the biggest magazines in the heavy metal world. That satisfies the primary notability criterion alone, without question, but, on top of that, we have Pitchfork Media reviewing them, twice, and significant mentions in other less famous ezines. J Milburn 12:03, 3 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 Redirect and merge into new article Prince Albert tobacco, which is referenced. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert in a Can[edit]

Prince Albert in a Can (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced prank phone call. Even if it is a classic, it is still not verifiable. This would be acceptable as a section in an article on Prince Albert tobacco, but there is no such article. There is no need for an article to stand alone about the joke. Accordingly, delete as unverifiable and without sufficient notability for its on article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The move along with more information is an acceptable solution - though it might have been nice of the editor who moved the page to drop a note here on the AfD ;) No harm done. Anyway, for what it is worth, keep the new version. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arkyan, yours was the second edit conflict while I was trying to drop said note. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine was probably the first. I apparently found the page just after you'd completed the move :) Oh, yeah.. and Keep the new version. ◄Zahakiel► 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have boldly moved the article to Prince Albert tobacco, which was half its content in any case, and begun sourcing this top brand. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New version is sourced/notable/generally encyclopedic. Calgary 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Prince Albert tobacco — no wait, that's been done. I think we have closure here folks. By the way, is your refrigerator running? Well you'd better catch it? (Same genre and era as the Prince Albert joke.) Realkyhick 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment. Are you German? Are you Swedish? Are you Danish? Are you Finnish? This AfD is. Since the merge is already done, and the new target article is notable, I'm closing the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - there doesn't really appear to be consensus here, so the article is kept But Please take action to cleanup and improve the list. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities named after people[edit]

List of colleges and universities named after people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list offers no unique information nor is it useful as a navigational aid. The information it contains is already in the articles about each of the universities and it offers no unique grouping or development-assisting feature that would make it useful per WP:LIST. Being named after someone is not a defining characteristic and the massiveness of the list reflects this. Far too much effort has been put into this list-for-the-sake-of-lists already, let's not put anymore into it. Wickethewok 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless list. Being named after a person is not a useful characteristic and is of no use to anyone. Tx17777 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Some might find it interesting. M.V.E.i. 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The objective of this list would be much better accomplished by a category. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have agreed but similar categories have been axed in the past. Carlossuarez46 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The article appears to be listcruft. Breaking the link rules, this article is filled with internal links and hardly anything else. TheInfinityZero 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The potential exists for making this into a worthwhile article by adding information about the reason why the institution selected its namesake, as well as the naming history of institutions that changed their names to entice big donors or curry favor with politicians or royalty. Also, the list could be subdivided by the nature of the relationship with the namesake. I would enjoy expanding the article, but I confess to limited wikitable-skills and fear of creating a tremendous mess if I attempt ambitious changes to the table. I did add to the introductory paragraph.--orlady 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At User:Orlady/Stuff I'm working on/Universities named for people I have to started to show how the article could be expanded and reorganized. BTW, one thing I have discovered is that many of the linked college/university articles do not have information about the institutions' namesakes. I have had to dig for that.--orlady 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) I have extensively revised the article. I added locations for most institutions, added information about the naming of many institutions, and subdivided the article by the person's relationship to the institution. It's still a work in progress, but I moved the material into article space because the vast majority of the reorganization is done. Additional work is needed on researching schools in the "not yet classified" category, describing the naming of institutions, adding sources, and fixing links for the numerous Indian universities that are still listed with external URLs.--orlady 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed information on the reasoning behind the naming of any institution, whether named after a peson or not, belongs in the article for said institution and not in a generic article of this nature. There are many reasons for the naming of such places and trying to expand this article to include them and then subdividing even further would end end up with a huge, unwieldy mess. The article is big enough already without any further expansion - there are no doubt literally thousands of colleges and universities in the world named after people, and it's far too vague a subject to be documented in such a way. Tx17777 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —bwowen talk•contribs 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another pointless, nearly impossible-to-maintain list. Realkyhick 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't call it exactly pointless listcruft, but it doesn't do anything that a category couldn't. Dbromage [Talk] 00:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "nearly impossible to maintain" argument doesn't fly -- it's not as if colleges and universities are being set up every other week. This could be better organized, but behind each of these educational institutions was a founder with a vision. Mandsford 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That may be so, but not all educational institutions named after people are named after their founder. The only such university in Australia is Bond University. In most countries you generally have to be dead to have a new university or college named after you. I daresay Jesus College, Oxford wasn't named after its founder! Dbromage [Talk] 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe indirectly it was.... Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Purdue, the University of Maryland... many of all the great universities in America are named after people65.207.127.12 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article isn't what it could be, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Eponymy is to my mind inherently noteworthy in some way and a list is certainly better than a category (as similar categories have been deleted in the past Category:Eponymous cities for example). Carlossuarez46 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While it needs some trimming, I think this is a valid navigational tool as having a university named after you is a pretty big deal? Corpx 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good navigational tool., which is sufficient justification for a list with such well-defined criterion. Good start. I'd like to see a column about location, which would further add to the usefulness. DGG (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That two universities are named after different people does not make them similar in any fashion, or in such a manner that it becomes natural to gather them together in the same article. For a "list of ..." article to serve a meaningful function there needs to be a common, and reasonably tight, theme which makes it natural to discuss the entries together. This would in general mean that being on the list has some impact on the university. Being in a particular location has an impact on a university, so List of universities in Denmark is fine. Being part of a major association or league has an impact on the university, so lists of Ivy League members are certainly justified (although that list is reasonably placed in the Ivy League article.) However, that the universities happen to be named after completely different people who's only relation is sharing the species of Homo Sapiens is a very loose association. Universities are not largely affected by being named after someone, and they are not in any way bound together by such a fact. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least it's reasonably well defined. Seems useful and defined, and a good navigational aid. The concept fits one of the ideas of a featured list. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve so it's not just a list. But if it's not improved there will be an inevitable second AFD. Thin Arthur 05:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. -- Roleplayer 00:08, 3 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Oprea[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league football player Tx17777 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he played for UCD in the eircom Premier League, the top level of football in the Republic of Ireland. - PeeJay 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has played in the top division in the Republic of Ireland, and all current UCD players have articles. Number 57 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has played in the top level in the Republic of Ireland. Mattythewhite 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he had played for the first squad for any legnth of time, I would agree, but 5 games before being released is not worthy of notability in my book Tx17777 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But guidelines state that if a player has played even one match at the top level of football in a country, then he is notable enough to have his own article. By that token, he is five times more notable than is required. - PeeJay 16:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for some who were fans of the teams he played in whem he played there that might be interesting. M.V.E.i. 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to exercise good faith that there are independent sources to verify he played for UCD. (The source currently in the article is related to the club; I think it's reliable, just not as independent as I'd like it to be.) Because UCD is in the top-level Irish league, he is notable per WP:BIO, whether he's a full professional or not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All it takes is one match on a top-league team. Realkyhick 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a no brainer this one. Has played at the top Irish level. Englishrose 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus=Wikipedia is not a directory as informed by this deletion which was upheld at WP:DRV. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of library and information science programs[edit]

List of library and information science programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is directory of universities which offer what is a fairly common college degree. Even if the massive number of external links are removed, this is still a fairly loose association of collected schools, as this degree is offered by many universities and is fairly comparable to something like "List of Universities With Art History programs" or "List of mechanical engineering programs". Wickethewok 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, maybe it needs some work on it but it might evolve in to a nice thing. M.V.E.i. 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite - This article breaks Wikipedia's list policies by being filled with internal links. In addition, the external links are not in their own subcategory, alike the rest of Wikipedia. This article must be rewritten if it hopes to not be removed. TheInfinityZero 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Jakew 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! While the list of American and Canadian masters programs is taken from the ALA, the lists of undergraduate programs (and perhaps programs in other countries) is unique and useful information. Undergraduate programs of this type are somewhat unusual and not accredited by any organization and, as such, no list of such programs seems to exist on the internet. As many of the programs are small and not very well publicized, Wikipedia is ideal for the creation of a list of them. Individuals either participating or interested in participating in a such a program will naturally find the entry and would likely contribute the programs they know of. In fact, this has already happened. The deletion of this article would not merely destroyed unique and useful information but would prevent the creation of such information. (Also stated in my defense of List of universities that offer the PPE degree.) Patrick Mhnin0 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps a better place for this list would be on LISwiki? --Zeborah 01:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a directory of schools that offer a particular degree. We're not a directory Corpx 06:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have many such subject lists, and we should have more, at least for the graduate programs relatively few universities have. (if the consensus should be to delete this one, i will however accept it and nominate the others) The ones not represented by articles should be and can be. This subject area is at a early state of development at WP, and needs to have the articles augmented, not removed. DGG (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jakew Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a rarely used term and an article without references (yes, not having references is actually a very good excuse for deletion, and it is up to those wanting to keep it to provide the references). Fram 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed Fall[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub. The subject is already covered in Cartoon physics. Shalom Hello 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge. Not having references is not an excuse. It's easy to nominate for deletion, but a good admonistrator/editor would go for himself and look for the links and references, or he should just shut-up. If EVERYTHING this article has is covered in the cartoon physics, then merge. M.V.E.i. 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is already covered at least as well at Cartoon physics, and Google offers no evidence that this is a commonly used term for the phenomenon, so a redirect is not appropriate. Iain99 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. --Djsasso 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a redirect is the way to go - the term "delayed fall" just doesn't seem to be used for this aspect of cartoon physics - it's more likely to refer to something else, such as a drop in blood pressure occuring some time after a drug is given. Iain99 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smoosh! delete this per Iain99, as he/she raises a valid point. !paradigm! 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
  • Delete. Even when you restrict the gsearch to articles that also have "cartoon", most of the 23 hits are about the delay of a fall TV schedule. Not a notable term. --Fabrictramp 17:09, 4 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. The cut and paste copies are being deleted in favor of keeping the more comprehensive existing list from which they were cut and pasted (redundant material in violation of GFDL being the deletion target rather than the original) Carlossuarez46 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atomic Betty Season 1 episodes[edit]

List of Atomic Betty Season 1 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an exact duplicate of the Season 1 section of List of Atomic Betty episodes and therefore does not need to exist as a separate entity. MSJapan 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason as above, except that it is a copy of the Season 2 section of the main episode list article:

  • Delete or merge. There's no point in having an exact copy of an article, but split into two pages, all with the same content. If any content from the two sub-pages can be moved to the main page before deleting, it should be done. --Patar knight 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I agree. The extra page's information could all be put on a single page. I think the articles should be deleted. TheInfinityZero 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although give them a quick once-over first to make sure we're not actually deleting any information that isn't in the main article. If any such information is found, then copy-paste it back into Atomic Betty before deleting. I doubt there is any, but a quick check just to be safe can't hurt. Bearcat 07:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. AfD arguments need to be based on policy. Those for delete are, pointing to lack of verifiable sources to justify the article. Those for keep are asserting there is notability but not proving it. Tyrenius 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy[edit]

Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article completely lacks context and fails to show how the phrases have become culturally significant (internet entertainment tabloids and ringtone charts don't help here.) This sort of article can be done properly (see Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons), but Family Guy has not had the same level of widespread cultural impact as The Simpsons has. Without any evidence of widespread cultural significance of Family Guy phrases, this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Richmeistertalk 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Family Guy. "Culturally significant" is a vague enough term at best, although among certain groups Family Guy is a very significant show. Not enough for an individual article, but worthy of a mention within the main article. Tx17777 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge would be a good idea if you were suggesting to merge into a small article. If you want to argue the term "culturally significant," there are at least a couple other articles you might want to suggest renaming. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is small. The two items worth keeping would fit nicely into a Catchphrases section in Family Guy article. The rest ("whose leg ...") are better suited to FG character pages. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I think everything worth keeping is merged here and here. / edg ☺ ★ 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page just wanders, and I doubt that there is really anything superiorly "culturally significant" for this to have its own article. Dannycali 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All cited and verifiable, just as much as Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Anyway, how many catch phrases from Family Guy made it into the Oxford English Dictionary? In round numbers...... :) Dbromage [Talk] 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tx17777. Dbromage [Talk] 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tx17777. While the show has commonly identifiable catchphrases (as with many modern comedies), "culturally significant" is overstating it. Re-create if Giggity-giggity-goo starts being used by people not referring to Family Guy. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Dannycali and Corpx. Merge completed. [11] [12] If someone feels this article must be preserved, the Family Guy wikia might be a good place for it. Wikipedia is not. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is also transwiki'ed (partially — no deletion or logging on the Wikipedia side). / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a great job was done of that. Ugh. ShutterBugTrekker 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps I'm not assuming good faith, but the parent comment reads like a grievance. If so, can objections be specified? If not, I apologize for accusing ShutterBugTrekker. / edg ☺ ★ 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being patently trivial. The Simpsons this ain't. VanTucky (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (See, both sides can play that annoying game). Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calling something trivial is not "I don't like it." I in fact much prefer Family Guy to the Simpsons, but I have no trouble admitting that none of the content from this article even comes close to the notability of the similar Simpsons article. Family Guy, even if I prefer its comedy, is not the cultural institution that is the Simpsons. Notability is not inherited, and simply because the show is notable does not entail that every aspect of it merits an article. VanTucky (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of independent sources saying why these are notable Corpx 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The one for the Simpsons is a special case, & considerably more notable than almost any other such list.DGG (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While Family Guy doesn't have the longevity of The Simpsons, its catchphrases and neologisms are already making an indelible impact on American pop culture. The word "giggity," to take edg's example, is used by male teenagers and 20-somethings in response to the sudden appearance of a woman they consider attractive and in their own age group (while an attractive older woman might get American Pie''s "MILF"). There already are verifiable sources and the academic journals should catch up soon. Donnabella 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:CRYSTAL
  2. If someone walks into a bar and people shout "Norm!", that doesn't mean the show Cheers merits a separate "Culturally significant words and phrases..." article. If verifiable sources and academic journals "catch up" with giggity, they should be footnoted in the Neologisms section in Family Guy.
  3. I don't think it's helpful to treat this article as a referendum on the validity and importance of Family Guy as compared to The Simpsons. The Simpsons "words and phrases" article clearly stands on its own; this article does not, and one can reasonably assume that it cannot be brought to encyclopedic quality at this time. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see where this article can go. Family Guy neologism are very culturally popular, and significant, and their use has been imitated by many Americans, and is the topic of many different websites found throughout the web. Although, the content of this article may not warrant an article of its own, and may be properly merged into the main article. I believe that the contents of this article deserves to mentioned and noted. RiseRobotRise 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As RiseRobotRise points out, simple Web searches show the popular usage of these words and phrases adapted to the double purpose of conveying the meaning intended for them in the show as well as simultaneously paying homage to the show. Anton Mravcek 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the words introduced or popularized by Family Guy have already entered (past tense) into pop culture and slang in a powerful way, and are used to carry meaning besides expression of fandom. I don't care if the eggheads catch up, so don't bug me with that wp:crystal crap. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of crap, are you saying this article is being held to too high a standard by "eggheads", and we should keep it on the basis of original research? And is that an exception we should apply to all articles, or just this one? (Or just any articles liked by Family Guy fans?) / edg ☺ ★ 23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionists have a million tricks up their sleeves. One of them has been to turn the phrase "original research" into something dirty and tawdry.
Anyone can type up famous words and phrases from Family Guy in a search engine box and get hundreds if not thousands of results. That's not original research. To hook someone up to an MRI and measure their physiological responses as they use these words, now that would be original research. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Others have already explained the tremendous influence of this show on American slang. Just because the article hasn't been brought up to "encyclopedic quality" (by whose standards, I don't know) under the duress of threatened deletion, doesn't mean that it can't be under any other circumstance. Michiganotaku 20:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both notable and easily verifiable. Carla Bondicteuresse 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's complaint that the article lacks context is something that can be fixed. But the nominator is wrong about the cultural impact of the show. For a show that hasn't been on as long as The Simpsons, Family Guy has had great cultural impact. Its neologisms which have entered the popular vernacular are already widely used all over the Internet and can be verified with a search engine. We don't demand scholarly journal articles to verify, for example, the sales figures of the latest version of Microsoft Word. ShutterBugTrekker 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNo, because there are other reliable sources for that information. We don't accept the results for a Google search for "I just bought a copy of Microsoft Word". --Richmeistertalk 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Among the many uses of "giggity" by 20-somethings, here's a very small sampling: a 23-year-old female from Florida has "Giggity giggity. Giggity goo." as her username on myspace (her myspace URL is "quiet_gray"). Page 7 of Technique (the student newspaper of Georgia Tech) for November 17, 2006, used "giggity giggity goo" to refer to Lindsay Lohan. The point is: "giggity" and some of the others are easily verified as notable. It might fall short of a silver platter, but not even a golden platter will satisfy Family Guy-haters. CompositeFan 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely notable and easily verified. Plinth molecular gathered 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to see a lot of these Keep votes seem to be from Family Guy fans that want to hold on to anything related about the show. The arguments for the notability of a few "culturally significant terms" is pretty shoddy. This article is not necessary, and the Quagmire article already has a lot of it already. And as a 20-something male with a healthy social life, I have never heard these terms used in real life. Dannycali 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a disgusting show. Having said that, lots of people our age use words from it. I don't know who Dannycali hangs out with. Augurr 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep This article should be kept but merged into Family Guy. Yoda317 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information is already merged into Family Guy. As for this article, do we Keep or Delete?/ edg ☺ ★ 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merge into the main article is much better, although I don't think saying that a nn website is a good example of showing notability (in "sideboob"), that's almost spammy. I think a redirect seems alright for now. The sources on the page only show that the words were used on the show, not how they are "culturally significant". Dannycali 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep article needs improvment but lets delete it before they got any chance to improve it! does taht make sense? one scohlarly source is due for december or january (depending on reveiw process), an informal source is due out later this monht but their already are plenty of informal sources on the web. even if "sideboob" was not coined by FG, FG inspired the website. its easy to turn up myspace users chusing FG words an prhases for there usernames and we even have one wikipedia user doing that Numerao 13:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you link or otherwise detail the "scholarly source" to which you refer? Cos right now we have giggity-squat plus vague promises. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your use of "giggity" is very interesting, and helps prove the point that this word has so permeated the culture it's already experiencing semantic drift.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007
        • It does? Are you certain about this? Have you not considered the possibility that I may be simply referencing a term which might have come up earlier in this conversation? Are you going to include in your article a case study of the guy on Wikipedia who uses giggity in everyday vernacular based on my above comment? / edg ☺ ★ 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote an article for Bob's Poetry Magazine on this topic, for the September issue, but it hasn't come out. I sent Bob the proof back just like he asked. I asked Bob and he said that it's someone else's article in the issue that's holding up release. So if you want to put pressure on him about this, the URL is bobspoetry.com. Michael Kr 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) p. s. I don't know what sources Numerao is talking about, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone's beaten me to the punch on this topic (like my idea for a book of scholarly essays about The L Word).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007[reply]
    • This article was nominated for deletion 7 days ago. No improvements have occurred in this time, despite several assurances that this article will get much better as long as it is Kept. This article is 8 months old, so it has had time to mature. There have been hardly any edits in the past two months. It got this far, and stopped. I don't see the initiative to improve it, only to Keep it. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe they refuse to continue playing deletionists' games. You improve one thing, thinking, maybe that'll satisfy them. But no, the deletionists have a Halliburtonian relentlessness about them. Fix one thing and they find another to complain about them. Maybe the only way to satisfy a deletionist is do bend to their will unquestioningly the first time around. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why on earth would anyone resist making improvements to an article just because the suggested improvements came from an AFD discussion? To me that seems almost like it would border on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... --Miskwito 22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. The deletionist's tactic is to overwhelm by always being ready with another criticism at the point that the enemy thinks this might actually do the trick, but no, they're ready with something else. Eventually this wears down the enemy to the point they just give up. Cromulent Kwyjibo 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, you're just using a strawman argument here. For this article, the only requests for improvement I see are things along the line of "find references", which is definitely something any article should have. If you're trying to argue that people requesting reliable references/citations for an article is a "deletionist tactic", then you might want to read up on Wikipedia policy some more. But what it looks more like you're doing is making up arguments on the part of the people you disagree with, then mocking those made-up arguments, instead of actually working to fix the article into something salvageable. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was created the very day List of neologisms on Family Guy was deleted. While I can't read the deleted article, the initial version of this article resembles the work of several editors. Interestingly, a start-to-current diff shows no real improvement since the edit creating this article in March. / edg ☺ ★ 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had I known that this article was deleted previously, I think it should be speedied. It's the same article under a different name. I don't think things have changed much in the last few months to warrant this article to exsist. I would like to request a speedy delete based on reposted info. Dannycali 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask, but it's a bit late for a speedy and my guess is they will leave it to the AfD. It would have been nice of voters here who participated in the previous discussion to have mentioned this, but none did. It would have been nice. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you poor thing, you deserve our sympathy! Gimme a break. This is another tactic.
It's not the same article. The one that was deleted focused only on word neologisms created by the show's writers. This one takes a broader, much more easily verifiable view. ShutterBugTrekker 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merge is performed here. We're down to Keep, Delete and Vilify the "deletionists". Choose wisely. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. Squidfryerchef 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merge is performed here. All that remains is should we Keep or Delete this article. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has already been merged, and I can't see any indication of much useful stuff here that's worth keeping. Certainly I don't see the need for a separate article. There are references cited in the article, but only one in-line citation, so it's essentially unsourced, because it's not clear which information has sources and which doesn't. I also don't see any of the people arguing "keep" actually providing any evidence any actual evidence of the "cultural significance" of any of these words or phrases--which after all is what the article is presumably about. What I do see is unsupported claims that lots of people use such words, but unsupported claims can't be used to demonstrate notability or cultural significance. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but shorten title to "Words and phrases from Family Guy." It is clear enough that the words are culturally significant. Jindřichův Smith 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand, how is that clear? It's not so just because you say it's so. You need to provide evidence (the definition of "culturally significant" is difficult, but just showing the notability of these words/phrases should be sufficient for now). Aside from "giggity", I really can't think of any words or phrases from Family Guy that could be considered notable. The article barely mentions more than that. What are they? If they're so notable and significant, it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of examples. --Miskwito 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does anyone have any strong evidence from a reliable source of the cultural significance of a word or phrase from Family Guy other than Giggity Giggity Goo (the significance of which is covered in Glenn Quagmire#Catchphrases)? --Richmeistertalk 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Answer Sideboob springs to mind. Look at sideboob.org. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The word sideboob exitsed before it was on Family Guy, and a website with an Alexa rank in the high 300,000s isn't all that culturally significant. --Richmeistertalk 21:02, 1 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. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Otis Ledbetter[edit]

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

Unreferenced since forever and tagged as such in March, not fixed since.

This individual is stated to have been featured on a number of Christian broadcasts, but there is no reference for that, and in any case "featured" is a weasel word meaning he appeared; he does not appear to be a regular contributor. There are a numb er of mentions on the Internet about him (as there are for any conservative Christian speaker, they have a sort of cottage industry in interviewing each other) but there's nothing that looks like an independent biography, and this article looks like a puff piece, which is unsurprising given its provenance. It was created by User:Jason Gastrich as part of his campaign to boost Louisiana Baptist University, and there is not much interest from anybody else - all substantive edits are by Gastrich or those patrolling his edits, everything else is maintenance. Survived AfD 1 as "no consensus" after sockpuppetry and canvassing by Gastrich, I suspect that a reappraisal of this article is now due. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Six months are plenty of time to find an independent reliable source. Accordingly, none of the assertions in the article are verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreement and affirmation with the two gentlemen above. There has been no establishment of notability according to my understanding of Wikipedia standards, that is, it has not been established by verifiable sources independent of the subject. Guy makes an excellent point when he writes, "there are a number of mentions on the Internet...they have a sort of cottage industry in interviewing each other." The subject has a fairly insignificant publication record even within a publishing genre that is somewhat notorious for its lack of standards, and is all but completely unknown outside of the conservative Christian community. - Nascentatheist 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the Gastrich thing was before my time, but Ledbetter is a published author and one of the higher ups in James Dobson's organization. I hear him on BBN occasionally. Even if the article was created in bad faith, the guy is well-known. --B 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Hello, B, please see my comments on the talk page. - Nascentatheist 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed your comments. I share your concern about there not being much in the way of online sources. That is the only reason that I would consider deleting the article. (Of course, as reasons go, it's far from a bad one.) I'm unconvinced by the rest ... he's a "minor player" inasmuch as he is not Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc, but so are most of the people we have articles on. If the article had not been created by a now-banned user or if it were not about a Christian, would this even be an issue? --B 02:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, B. Thanks for your reply. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I'd say that Ledbetter's Christianity is irrelevant. There are quite a few "Christian" entries that I, as an atheist, would never want to see deleted. It's a fair point to suggest that Jason's origination of the article has caused it to receive some of the attention that it has received. However, I'd qualify that by simply saying that the source of the article only made it's appearance occur more quickly as a subject of an AfD. Had Jason been completely independent of the article and I had run across it, I'd nominate it for the reasons I've stated; and I suspect that lots of other editors might be inclined to do the same thing. As it is, I didn't nominate it, but I support its deletion. Ledbetter's notability has not been established or supported, and he meets none of the criteria that I cite on the talk page. If there are lots of articles about "minor players" of this sort at Wikipedia, perhaps that's part of the problem that needs to be addressed, and that needs to start somewhere. - Nascentatheist 08:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that JzG and Nascentatheist, among others, are systematically going around deleting anything started by Jason Gastrich, but what possible harm can this article do? Do you not think some people will get some utility from being able to read that article? Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Response on the talk page. - Nascentatheist 00:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claims of notability. No sourcing to speak of. So far as I can tell, this is indeed another case of Gastrich inflating the importance (in the larger scale) of a minister. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get the feeling that this guy is almost notable, almost worth keeping, almost important ... but every time I tried to find something to fill in the "almost" and give this article meat, the substance kept evaporating. Not every author is worthy of an article, and that's really all this guy has going for him. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:55, 4 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. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seke (manga)[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research that parades as a dicdef. See also related AFDs on Uke and Seme --Farix (Talk) 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of Starfleet ship classes. Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet starship registry[edit]

Starfleet starship registry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

How it pains me to do this, after spending so much time months ago revising and editing this article -- with a better grip on policy, it's clear this is nothing but plot summary about a non-notable aspet of Star Trek. It's a well-organized list of trivia. --EEMeltonIV 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing this for deletion (after FrozenPurpleCube's note)

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Getting Warm[edit]

Just Getting Warm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can not find one verifiable source for this article. Just Blaze has never mentioned it in his blog, and a search for his quote on the page returns no results. Surely a project of this magnitude would have attracted significant attention in Hip Hop media. Xlrbnc 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houlton Road Trio[edit]

Houlton Road Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Hirolovesswords 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sign of notability. MarkBul 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I read this right, they sold (sorry, gave away) 47 copies of the album. Their first performance was August 2. Speedy delete with a big stick - there's no possible way they meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Poorly sourced and violates much of the policies on what Wikipedia is not. ELIMINATORJR 22:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of whites[edit]

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

The article is presently tagged as OR, lacking references, essay, and USA-specific. These are all true, and it does not seem that the situation is improving: in its present shape, the only way to improve the article is to rewrite it from scratch. Furthermore, the encyclopaedic value of the article, even if rewritten to conform to WP guidelines, is rather dubious. Therefore, I propose to delete this article per WP:NOR and WP:V. -- int19h 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom this warped personal essay and random compilation of movie trivia. "Chucky and Bride of Chucky are blonde, blue-eyed, possessed, and evil"? WTF? wikipediatrix 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's the comment of the original author of the article from its talk page: "Hello. This page is directly copied/pasted from Ethnic stereotypes in American media". I would like to point out that the "Ethnic stereotypes in American media" article underwent a separate AfD process recently, and was deleted. I believe that the reasons presented in that AfD mostly apply to this one as well. -- int19h 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Something like this could be a legitimate article, but this isn't it. OR, Essay, etc. MarkBul 15:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of references is not an excuse. An administrator/editoe should find them himself if that botheres him, or should just shut-up. A good article nicely written. It needs references that's all. With the time it will be added references and stereotypes on more white groups and it will beckome even more good. M.V.E.i. 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of references may not always be a legitimate reason for deletion, but original research is. As itstands, the article represents what is most likely an observation of the author. If you can find appropriate sources, by all means add the, but I doubt the sources exist, because as I've said before, the article is not even very accurate, providing highly generalized and narrowly focused information. And no, referencing isn't the only problem. Calgary 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, all that's written their is often-used stereotypes. I havent ready anything here i havent heard or read or seen somewhere before. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That isn't true. Original research is NOT listed amongst Reasons for Deletion according to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Furthermore, although it is true that some content was probably added just based on the contributor's personal experiences and not actual academic sources, there are definitely sources out there. I'm not an expert about stereotypes of whites, but I know for a fact that there are entire books written about content relevant to this article. --Drenched 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not lack of references as such which is the problem, it is the fact that no reliable sources can possibly be found for the claims in the article, since it's essentially an essay. Therefore, it falls under "article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", which is a valid reason for deletion. -- int19h 05:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this article falls under the "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" reason for deletion...just because it isn't right now, doesn't mean it can't possibly be. Again, I'm not an expert on the topic, but there are sources out there about these issues! All I did was a simple internet search, and I came up with plenty of published material about White identity/image/stereotypes: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. See? Now all someone has to do is read it and rehash it and cite it on this page. I'm not vouching for all of the current content of the article, but this is a legitimate subject matter, and is verifiable. --Drenched 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose I fail at being a white American male, as I could not care less about football, surfing or beer. Seriously, though, this article is a terrible mess of original research and unverified claims. If there is an encyclopedic article to be found along these lines it is so far away from what exists here that a wholesale deletion and starting from scratch would be the best way to find it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude the article is about stereotypes. The thing about stereotypes is that they are not always right. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree. The article may go against point-of-fiew requirements. I find football and surfing boring and hate beer. TheInfinityZero 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DUDE THOSE ARE STEREOTYPES, it doesn't mean that all USAians are really like that, but the stereotype is they are. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also the fact that, in spite of the "whites" in the title this article appears to be more a collection of selected stereotypes by nationality, not race. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • White are not one ethnic group, white is a race. But that race includes many ethnic group, on each ethnic group from the white race there are written the stereotypes on it. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because there is no white race, so the article attempts to encompass all of the many nationalities and ethnicities that could be considered white. Calgary 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a white race, just like there is a mongoloid race and african race. It has nothing to do with nationalism, it's a colection of stereotypes, and those stereotypes exist. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because there are both broad and narrow stereotypes. Some stereotypes (e.g. the dumb blonde, etc.) don't pertain to any specific nationality and are applied to Caucasians of various nationalities. Other stereotypes (e.g. the Irish are heavy drinkers) are applied only to specific nationalities. This article discusses both types of stereotypes. --Drenched 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quash! Quick make it go away before it spreads like cancer per theinfinityzero. !paradigm! 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
Ah? That was weird. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is terribly scattered, attempting to list the many (unrelated) stereotypes that are associated with specific ethnic groups that are commonly grouped as "white" (and keep in mind that "white" is a census term, not an ethnic group). Anyway, the entire thing is jumbled together, and the information itself is original research/very inaccurate. The information, in a sourced form, belongs in the specific articles of the respective ethnic groups. Calgary 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • White is a race, and here they listed stereotypes on different ethnic groups from that race. If it needs fixing that's one thing, but not deletion. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not that a good article couldn't be written--- David Allen Grier, Eddie Murphy, John Boy and Billy, and other comedians have made many a good observation about the stereotypical white American. This article, as pointed out by others, is actually an umbrella for stereotypes about different European-American groups... Wasps, Limeys, Micks, Wops, Krauts, etc. and it's too broad. There are sources for that type of information. William R. Helmreich wrote a book about stereotypes called The Things They Say Behind Your Back, and I'm sure there are others. Mandsford 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you dont vote delete but Evolve, because what you say is that the theme has place to be but it should be upgraded by the writing level. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, dumbass, I vote delete. Let someone who has some talent write an article. Mandsford 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of those !voting to keep have made a convincing refutation of the idea that this is OR, and much of the non-U.S. content is made up of a national stereotypes, not racial ones. VanTucky (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AND THAT'S WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of synthesis linked together under a broad topic Corpx 06:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, SYNTH and inherently POV. Thin Arthur 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree that this article is "inherently POV." It's POV if you try to perpetuate the belief that any of the stereotypes are true, but it isn't POV to say that these stereotypes exist. --Drenched 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it has not the collection of the stereotypes themselves like here. M.V.E.i. 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some background: this is an article originally split from Ethnic stereotypes in American media with sister pages Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, and Stereotypes of American Indians. Stereotypes of the various nationalities encompassed within the Caucasian race exist and have been academically studied and should have an entry in this encyclopedia. Bias and OR as cited in many of the deletion arguments above are major flaws of this article, but are not a grounds for deletion according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and can be corrected. Furthermore, this article is not saying that the stereotypes listed are true. A lot of people making deletion arguments saying "Hey, I'm White and I don't like football, this page is crap!" don't seem to understand what a stereotype is: (at the stereotypes wiki article, it specifically says "Stereotypes are rarely completely accurate, based on some kernel of truth, or completely fabricated"). The purpose of the article is to document existing stereotypes and what scholars have to say about them, not to perpetuate the stereotypes as true. I feel that the subject matter is legitimate and deserving of an article, and a lot of the deletion arguments either point out flaws that aren't grounds for deletion, or misunderstand what the article is about entirely. --Drenched 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Drenched. But it includes numerous OR statements, as correctly noted by AfD nominator.Biophys 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what's the problem with that? I called up for some of those that were involved in the article ("it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions"). I remind you that 2 of those i called voted Delete. I notified them about the discussion, and stated my own opinion and what i did for the article. I dont understand what's the problem with that. I didnt say "you must", i said that i hope and i think. Besides only now i saw that there are laws against that, hhh it's also the first time in my life i saw a word Canvassing. M.V.E.i. 09:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless, full of OR, and unnecessary. Jmlk17 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not challenging your discretion as an admin, and of course you're not obligated to explain your vote, but I am curious about your reasoning behind your belief that the page is "useless" and "unnecessary." Do you think all the ethnic-stereotypes pages (e.g. Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians) are unnecessary and should be deleted, or just one for white stereotypes? --Drenched 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless?? Usefull, and very. A fact that i for example searched for an article with the theme on the Wikipedia already shows it's usefull. If you dont like it's "full of OR", dont complain fix it yourself. It's easy to say whats wrong, but trying improving is a different story. M.V.E.i. 08:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally do try and fix articles, but I don't think this one should even be around. Jmlk17 08:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question, how many articles did you create? I just noticed that to delete, nominate or vote for deletion for you is like kicking a stone. I just guess that someone who knows the process of creating articles and how not easy it is would be more smart with the thing. M.V.E.i. 08:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well M.V., I have like 17,000 edits over the past two years, including several creations. I prefer not to create them, rather, I do my admin chores around here usually instead. But beyond that, I feel I no longer need to explain my delete !vote. Jmlk17 08:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "edits" statistics is nothing. You add a delition template and bingo, you have another edit. Ad a word, another edit. As i understood from your words, you try to show your not useless by being brutal. I know real administrators, who create articles, who really contribute to Wikipedia and they behave smart and respectfuly, because they know the process from the inside. M.V.E.i. 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, you miss the point - It's a usefull article, a theme that has place to be, and as i can see different editors improve it and add information to it all the time. Those who got insulted here by the sterotypes, it ain't execly shows their to smart. Stereotypes means this information is mostly not correct. A smurt man won't get insulted on humour, i'm half Russian half Jewish and i added both to the Russians section, and re-created the Jews section. Those who say it lacks references or has to much "or's", dont be lazy, take part, fix. And besides, those are NOT reasons to delete. Those are reasons to keep the article so editors could come and improve it. With the time it's level will go up. The fact that so much editors edited it and added information already shows it has place to be. M.V.E.i. 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix.--Steven X 10:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ~ Wikihermit 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - this needs a helluva lot of work, but this is not the place to sort that out -- Roleplayer 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Jmlk17. Article is pretty well useless. Lychosis T/C 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many here explained why it's useful and interesting. M.V.E.i. 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, i'll explain again. I always wanted to know what the stereotypes on Irish and Scots are (except the skurt), and here i found out what they are. OFFCOURSE i dont agree with them, but at least i know what they are now. Why is it useful? i know how they were treated and insolted by the society, and i can find how to prove that the stereotypes are false. M.V.E.i. 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is full of synthesis of different white nationality stereotypes without an over-arching white stereotype. The few citations that are included are for specific nationality stereotypes. There may be no stereotypes of whites, since whites are the majority group where they live. Only minorities get stereotyped.----DarkTea© 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • White are a race, not nationality. So this page collects stereotypes about different nationalities from the white race. Theres no other way. M.V.E.i. 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I respectfully disagree that minorities are the only ones who get stereotyped. Sure, they may get it worse, but there are overarching "White" stereotypes too. If White stereotypes don't exist, how do you account for labels such as WASP, dumb blonde, and white trash? --Drenched 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minorities? We Russians are the 7th biggest nation in the world by population and 1rst by the size of the land, minority?? Actually mostly those who are usually majorities get stereotyped. Actually for now we mostly lack the minorities but have mostly the big once stereotyped. M.V.E.i. 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That will just be many little articles. M.V.E.i. 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will.GideonF 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — pathetic OR. Not a single published reliable or academic source is listed. --Hillock65 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if that bothers you, YOU find them, voting delete is the easiest thing. Besides, it's NOT a reason for deletion. It's a reason to put those cool citation needed things near arguable statements, it means the article needs to be improved, but not deleted. And what "academic source" do you want?? Sereotypes are rarely there, and mostly in movies or cartoons. M.V.E.i. 11:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. By those arguments we could close 2/3 of Wikipedia. M.V.E.i. 16:29, 5 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. WjBscribe 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation (worship)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a definiton. ~ Wikihermit 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as a clear dicdef. VanTucky (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It already has been transwikied. The issue is what to do with it now. :) - TexasAndroid 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota American Legion Baseball[edit]

NN high school baseball league, only 17 direct google hits not counting duplicates, fails WP:N, and WP:V, also nominating the teams in the league. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP--What's the reason for deletion????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopold Samsonite (talk • contribs) 14:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. MarkBul 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Re-direct to American Legion Baseball. Having an article on this one league is like having articles on all the separate Little Leagues. Spanneraol 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." No reliable sources. Redirect only the state-level article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the individual team articles are just this side of being eligible for speedy deletion as non-notable groups. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done with speeding them. Jaranda wat's sup 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think we need to cover HS baseball in this detail, considering the lack of notability Corpx 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mucotomy[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - as a medical procedure, I believe it has potential to be expanded. (whoops, an inadvertent dangling modifier joke) After all, we have an article on penectomy and hemicorporectomy as well. --Agamemnon2 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Agamemnon. It's currently a definition, but being a medical procedure can be expanded. ~ Wikihermit 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All stub articles begin with the most basic definition. The article exists first in wikipedia before being copied in the wiktionary project. Here in wikipedia, we can add more depth in the said article such penectomy and hemicorporectomy, which we cant in wiktionary because its a dictionary. Improve, don't remove †Bloodpack† 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ExpandableMbisanz 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Indian cricket team in England in 2007, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India vs England 2007 Cricket Series[edit]

India vs England 2007 Cricket Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. An individual cricket series is not notable enough for it's own article, IMHO. TexasAndroid 12:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this one, keep the real one Presumably you will also nominate the real article on the Indian cricket team in England in 2007 as your nomination didn't say that this [34] brief little stub was an unneeded duplicate, but that the series as a whole wasn't notable. Perhaps you don't understand the major importance of a test series, nor are aware of the dozens of similar articles on Wikipedia. This is an entirely misguided nomination and should be withdrawn ASAP if it's regarding the main cricket article on the tour. If it's just about deleting the stub mentioned, then fair enough, it's superfluous but your reason for wanting it deleted is the wrong one. Nick mallory 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from presuming what I will or will not do. You have no knowledge of such, and no basis on which to make such false presumptions. This nomination is about the listed article and nothing more. The listed article has no sources, gives no assertion of notability, and no hint that it is supposed to be for something bigger. The "real" article you mention has none of these failings. I had searched for articles for other years following the naming pattern in the listed article and found none before I PRODed this yesterday. The listed article totally fails to give any context to why the event is important, and fails to give any clues to someone like me, lacking that context, to allow me to find the context.
I personally would still not consider a Cricket series to be notable, but given the well sourced and referenced nature of the "real" article I would never presume to submit such an article for deletion. In such an issue of personal feelings vs the reality of the article meeting the guidelines so well, my personal feelings would definitely lose out.
So in the end, the nomination remains, but is indeed for only the listed article, though more because of it being a duplicate than for my original reasons. Is there any point to just redirecting the listed article to the real article, or would that be a worthless redirect? - TexasAndroid 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to research AfD's to save everyone this kind of pointless work. The nominated article should have been deleted because it's a pointless duplicate of the extensive article which is already written. Your reason for nomination though is entirely invalid, such a tour absolutely is notable. You're right in wanting it deleted, wrong in your reason. This is important because a precedent shouldn't be set in which cricket tours are deleted. I fail to see how how failed to find the 'real' article as it's number one on google if you type England India Cricket 2007 or any similar combination. Anyway, do you see my point here? The best thing to do would be to immediately redirect it, which I'm sure you would have done if you'd found the proper article yesterday. Nick mallory 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to walk away from this discussion. Further "woulda/coulda" discussions are just going to inflame emotions to no good end. I think I did a decent effort (described above) to research this givent the lack of context of the sub-stub. You disagree. Points made on both sides and further discussion of the issue serves no purpose beyond antagonizing one or the other of us, which is to noone's benefit. This AFD is on the linked article only, and is now because it is a duplicate. That's what is important. - TexasAndroid 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's redirected now so this can be closed. Nick mallory 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - seems to be consensus to delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously survived a Keep vote in first AFD back in 05. An author kept PRODding the article although a earlier speedy tag was contested by another poster. So taking article to AFD as per procedure. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote from me --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unecyclopedic article gathers no references establishing notability. --Richmeistertalk 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you have a problem with it not having references, you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No improvement to article's references or notability since it survived AfD in 2005. alexis+kate=? 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Weak assertion of notability but fails WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources, so it fails WP:ORG. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm involved with HUMBUG. HUMBUG is as notable as many other user groups that have not come up for AfD. Robert Brockway 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My concern is that policy is not being fairly applied. HUMBUG has had 2 AfDs and a speedy delete and other comparable LUGs/UUGs have not been touched. For example Linux Users' Group of Davis, Tidewater Unix Users Group, Zlug and Linux Users of Victoria. Robert Brockway 04:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group has several points which add to its notability. The first being that it has played host to the southern hemispheres largest Linux User Conference (linux.conf.au), it is the home group of former Debian Project Leader Anthony Towns, and its broad focus at a time when home Unix/Linux use was just starting to get off the ground. Purserj 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Any reliable sources that back up those claims? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply But of course :) Linux.conf.au was hosted by HUMBUG in 2002. More to come. Robert Brockway 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Anthony Towns' involvement with HUMBUG is well documented. Let's use Anthony's (AJ's) own website & blog AJ's website, AJ's blog. AJ uses his humbug.org.au email address as a general purpose address. If you look at "man interfaces" on any Debian or Ubuntu box you'll see that AJ used his HUMBUG email address in there. Robert Brockway 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply The age of HUMBUG is well established (thus it was active before OSS/Linux was popular). HUMBUG mail archives from 1995. There was more mail than that but the archives are incomplete. Robert Brockway 14:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Hi Robert - sorry hun but since a search of your name on humbug.org.au gives almost 7000 hits, I think you might be too close. alexis+kate=? 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply In both AfDs I have explicitely stated by involvement with HUMBUG. This involvement does not invalidate the citations that I have supplied as requested though. Robert Brockway 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ideally you wouldn't be voting on this or editing the page in question at all... seems like a conflict of interest... but you do get points for using your real name on here. alexis+kate=? 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not aware of any requirement to avoid being involved in an AfD just because one is involved in the topic. I have explicitely declared my involvement with HUMBUG in both AfDs so it could be taken in to account when the AfD is finalised - an AfD is not a vote afterall. Robert Brockway 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As the for the question of me editing the page, this is not a page about me, but about a club I am involved with. My edits have always been NPOV. Anyway, enough said on this as it is drifting from the AfD. Robert Brockway 17:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If Robert is too close substitute my own name for his in the above References. I was going to come on this morning and find the links to verify the statements I had made, but Robert had beat me to it. Purserj 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete lack of independent references means this article fails WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins 10:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing to meet WP:ORG. -- Roleplayer 03:22, 6 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 Keep Especially in light of the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures, it seems there are reasonable disagreements regarding the encyclopedic notability of these creatures. As the article is sourced, policy does not demand its deletion, and the discussion below favors retaining the article for the moment. Xoloz 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Nonnotable fictional monster. Sole sources are monstrous manual entries, with no independent references. Eyrian 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • keep - see my rationale at Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons). Artw 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant creature within the D&D game, based on creature from mythology, that has been around from the start. BOZ 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Per Boz.--Robbstrd 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because you are not interested in Dungeons & Dragons does not mean that D&D-related articles are not notable. Clearly people who have zero amount of fame or are only famous in their neighborhoods are not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, even an online encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles and a seemingly unlimited amount of space; that's what user pages are for. Fan fiction is also usually not considered notable. These articles, however, are notable. There are hundreds of thousands of other people, perhaps even millions, who are interested in Dungeons & Dragons. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of keeping or deleting these articles.


    Advantages of keeping: These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games); these articles have helpful, interesting, and detailed background information for those wishing to know more about the creatures; and the casual person browsing Wikipedia who knows nothing of the subject but wants to can easily learn by reading these articles or by simply scanning the first paragraph (for example, I was interested in the Star Wars Expanded Universe but knew absolutely nothing about it, so I read various articles that some editors are want to call "not notable" or "fancruft" and quickly became quite educated on the subject).


    Disadvantages of keeping: It increases Wikipedia's bandwidth by an infinitesimal amount, or perhaps the subjects of these creature articles might feel offended by how they are represented in the articles and sue for libel. Also, perhaps some religious zealots might think these articles are blasphemy.


    Advantages of deleting: Are there any? Perhaps appeasing editors who like to delete things or have a grudge against fiction, or perhaps to follow a guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability or WP:FICT. But how will that benefit Wikipedia?


    Disadvantages of deleting: Basically, people will be deprived of everything I mentioned in "Advantages of keeping."


    Merging: Not a good idea. This would create a giant page that would take forever to load and, when loaded, would slow down computers. Some might advise greatly condensing the information so that the page of merges is smaller, but that is completely unnecessary. People could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. They don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page.--71.107.178.64 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (copied from larger debate) - Notability is a guideline, not a rule. In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not. If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. BOZ 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to a D&D Wiki. In-dept coverage of a unit in a game belongs there Corpx 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of weak keep - BOZ says it fairly well for me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we're going to be cataloging D&D creatures there's no reason to specifically eliminate this fairly popular one. --Hanging Jack 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The same arguments made for the mass nomination apply here, shouldn't there be some form of double jeopardy against this kind of vexatious nomination?KTo288 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In fairness to the nom, double jeopordy wouldn't apply, since this was first listed on the 21st of August. Looks like there was an error with the nomination, and a bot fixed it - so it now appears on the 28th, after the other mass moninaton for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures was closed. No bad faith involved. That being said, see below. ◄Zahakiel► 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, slap my own hand and repeat 'I must assume good faith' a hundred times.KTo288 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beattie Elementary School[edit]

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

non-notability Chris 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Nom does not cite a policy.--WaltCip 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of notability. Anarchia 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability + WP is not a directory Corpx 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not asserted, unreferenced. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page was existing for years, if this is not notable for deletion, many of such pages will be has same fates. Roded86400 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect this one to the lincoln nebraska article in a school section please yuckfoo 07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has sat around in AfD since mid-August, plenty of time for someone with an interest to make an article out of this directory item. There isn't even enough information here to make it worth some kind of merge into Lincoln, Nebraska. The info on the principal, for all we know, is outdated already. As a rule of thumb: If the deletion discussion has used up more of editors' time than the work on the article ever did, it's time for deletion. Noroton 15:14, 2 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 Keep. It may make more sense to have the article focus on the company rather than the individual but that can be dealt with on the article talk page. JoshuaZ 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Godine[edit]

David_R._Godine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is a textbook case to assist exclusionists who are unfamiliar with an area of knowledge. Men and women who read Modern American poetry certainly know the story of Godine. Yes, the article is poorly written, but the man is highly notable. Did the exclusionist who tagged it for deletion visit his official website and see how this man is carrying a great number of American master poets on his catalog. Strong keep. Wmjuntunen 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FROM: William Juntunen to [email protected], [email protected]
DATE: Aug 21, 2007 5:50 PM
SUBJECT: Wikipedia article for David R. Godine on Wikipedia threatened with deletion

Hi

I was reading a Garrison Keillor daily Writer's Almanac, and the poet was published by David Godine.

http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/programs/2007/08/13/index.html#wednesday

Well, I wanted to know who that was, and I turned to the Wikipedia. Alas, there was an article on the Wikipedia, but it is nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. There is a group of vigilante editors known as exclusionists who flag anything about which they know little.

Anyways, I wanted to report this to your publishing house, hoping that you have resources to fill out the biography, maybe with an official biography of the man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Godine Wmjuntunen 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is nothing in the article that makes a case for its notability. --Hooperbloob 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 14:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename. Just on August 26th, one of the publisher's books was reviewed in the Sunday book review of the New York Times. There's a slew of articles referring to the publisher on Google news, and it gets lots of Google hits as well. The company is notable (they also acquired Black Sparrow Books, check out their impressive author roster!), but this is a biography of the founder, who I do not believe is notable. Thus the article should be reworked to be about David R. Godine as the company and not the man, and perhaps renamed to reflect that, such as David R. Godine Publishers. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will evolve to something better. M.V.E.i. 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. This is a malformed AfD as there is no nomination. --Malcolmxl5 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eliz81 above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 13:10, August 29, 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. — TKD::Talk 07:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Pong[edit]

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

Non-notable videogame.Zuxtron 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd disagree, there's many entries here of video game coin-ops that are not well known to everyone. That's the purpose of encyclopedic entries here, to familiarize the reader with subjects they may not be familiar with. I could see calling for merging it with Pong, but calling for outright deletion is like using a bazooka to swat a fly. I could also see questioning for deletion on the grounds of notability if it had been on someone's home brew hack they made and put up an entry on. However, this was an actual product that was manufactured and sold by a major video game coin-op company. It also represents a number of firsts - such as the first time Atari tried to enter a more consumer arena. It's also the first time video game manufacturers explored non-traditional locations, a direct ancestor to later placements such as hotel rooms (pay for play games first started with the Atari 5200, all the way to current N64 or PlayStation setups), kiosks at fast food resteraunts (such as the N64 kiosks at McDonald's), and more. The only thing that really needs to be done with that entry is have more content added, which I will do today or tomorrow sometime. Also, I'm not sure if you're a shadow account for someone else on Wikipedia or what, but the bulk of your contributions to Wikipedia ( 5 out of 7) seem to be just articles for deletion proposals. And just about all with the simple "for the reasons above". Also, simply labeling it with a "not-notable" tag with no explanation of what you mean by the tag or why you consider "not-notable" applies here does not give much of a reason for calling for deletion in the first place. --Marty Goldberg 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because you lost in it doesnt make it not notable. Keep working man! M.V.E.i. 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article appears notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. TheInfinityZero 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is at least semi-notableMbisanz 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources to establish notability. The copyvio looks like it could have been resolved by reverting to an earlier version, but the concern about sourcing would still remain. No prejudice against re-creation with proper sources cited. — TKD::Talk 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Judge[edit]

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

Non-notable instructor at a single school. There are quite alot of un-referenced titles and such but this is very much a hidden garden type of thing - all within a particular organization. Should be noted that her instructor was also recently removed after afd debate but although there were questions of notability it was mainly due to copyright violations. Peter Rehse 07:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 07:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN - Being 8th dan in karate in not notable, being head of a school is not notable, all unsourced. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing notability guidelines. VanTucky (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've met this person, and she is a good friend of one of my instructors, so I will not be voting. I did want to supply the following comments related to the WPMA Notability guidelines:
    • The World Martial Arts Hall of Fame appears to be international and not restricted to a limited number of styles/schools.
    • The USKA is comprised of a number of different traditional martial arts schools, and holds international tournaments.
Of course, without references they don't count for establishing notability. I'm just trying to get a feel for how we are going to apply the WPMA notability guidelines. If those credentials were properly referenced, would she be notable then? Bradford44 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well were those titles International, national, state, local. It doesn't say. I also don't think membership in the World Martial Arts Hall of Fame is a sign of notability. All we really have is a teacher at a single school.Peter Rehse 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost count of the number of people who say they are part of a hall of fame, now is it just me or in the age of the internet would you expect a listing of hall of fame members to be online? Ignoring that, notability is only supported if you know the criteria for entry, i.e. not "How much can you pay?", this may well not be the case in this case but it does need to be made clear. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you have a problem with it not having references, you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And of course its even easier for the author to provide them. Google was checked - its complicated by the fact the Donna Judge is a common name but most entries have to do with an actual Judge. I checked again and also found a copyvio http://www.blogger.com/feeds/2058732798351980624/posts/default/1785955979932347504

Peter Rehse 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to hunt for sources on an individual I have never heard anything of out-side wiki? Your asking us to prove a negative, i.e. there are no sources. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would be a keep if there was even a reference to a non-online newspaper article about the Hall of Fame thing.Mbisanz 06:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to problems with original research. — TKD::Talk 05:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fecal bacteria in sand[edit]

Fecal bacteria in sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete This page is chock full of OR. Also, not a single source in the entire article. GlassCobra 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the inexperienced author, User:Harsh bmw2000, indicates that his research is being published, in which case temporarily userfy, or keep if he can add sources. Remove first-person occurrences and advise the author to read Wikipedia:No Original Research. Has potential to be a good article. --SmokeyJoe 06:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a cut and paste (e.g. "as shown in Figure 1") but can't find the source to know if it's a copyvio. Dbromage [Talk] 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A long article, clearly cut and pasted, ending with "Based on the results of these analyses, I was able to evaluate if FIB abundance is related to any of the above specified parameters." And who are YOU? A victim of plagiarism, that's who. Mandsford 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that it is cut and paste from the author's own work, probably not a copyright violation, but it is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. As Harsh bmw2000 does not appear likely to fix the problems, that article should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feuruss[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things which you made up on your own. The Evil Spartan 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Tipple[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability. Article is barely even a stub. Dr.Who 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand as has appeared a numerous roles according to imdb. Tim! 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at his IMDB profile, none of his roles leap out as significant, nor do searches reveal evidence of a significant fan base or "cult" following, which are the criteria one usually applies to actorly notability. At present, the most interesting thing to be said about him is that he barely appears in a TV movie which is considered part of a long-running SF franchise. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —212.32.79.18 11:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor roles do not attest notability Corpx 14:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor character actor, no coverage in reliable sources. As an aside, I admire the complete lack of WP:COI of the nominator, who even as a Dr Who fan recognizes this article fails notability requirements. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No comment. M.V.E.i. 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. Actors act, that's what they do. Looking at IMDB, this seems to be an unremarkable actor and the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. --Malcolmxl5 22:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not the slightest sign of real-world impact or notice, nor of actually significant roles. --Calton | Talk 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 04:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hart wrestling family[edit]

DeleteBut put all the information on Stu Hart's page since that's where the information came from in the first place.(MgTurtle 17:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

  • Keep for 3 reasons - 1) the family tree wasn't taken from the Stu page, the family listing was moved there from the Stu page then removed from the Stu Hart page since it was more appropriate on the Hart wrestling Family page (with a {{main}} reference in the Stu Hart article so that no one got confused) 2) The Hart family in itself is notable, they've had PLENTY of coverage in various media and as such fullfill the Notability requirement that Wikipedia has. 3) and the main reason it shouldn't just remain in the Stu Hrat page is - Stu is dead, the Hart Family lives on, does stuff, expands, debuts, dies, marries etc. even afte Stu is dead and thus is more appropriate for a seperate article instead of being a subsection in the article of a guy that is now dead. MPJ-DK 17:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The family tree may have be updated but the origianl was taken from Stu's page and the family list was alos taken from Stu's page.And there's nothing new on the page and the notable people (i.e. Harry Smith, Nattie Nedihart, Teddy Hart, Bret) have pages and that's where new info can be added.

Who cares where the original family tree that's been replaced months ago came from? And it's a simple question - did the Hart wrestling family end with Stu's death? I'm not going to argue with you any more, I've spoken my mind, I leave it up to the others to vote now MPJ-DK 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the opposite should happen. I think the family tree and list of names should be removed from Stu Hart's page. There should be a couple of sentences under the Family heading talking about him being the patriarch of the wrestling family, and there should be a tag that says {{Main|Hart wrestling family}}. The list of family members and family tree should be kept separate because it clogs up Stu's page. Plus, the Hart family is more than notable enough to have their own page. Nikki311 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I did exactly as you suggested, it was reverted by MgTurtle but I agree that'd be the best way to handle it. MPJ-DK 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the Hart family is notable separate from Stu Hart himself, and arguably more famous. JPG-GR 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentThe Hart family is notable, some pople more than others, (I think Stu is more notable than most of his children or grandchildren) but the notable people have their own page and to include the non-notable people in a whol another page is just stupid. I think that the list of names and the family tree should stay on Stu's page because the sentence says that Stu's greatest accomplisment is his family with his wife Helen.And without this information on Stu's page,it's basically a wrestling stub because it leaves out most of his life.That's my view.(MgTurtle 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment, Please check WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not liking something is not a reason to delete it. Besides, if moving the information makes Stu's page a stub...so be it. It can always be expanded to add more information about his career (which needs to be there anyway). Moreover, the comment about Stu saying that his family is his greatest accomplishment is unsourced and should probably be removed. Nikki311 04:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- i dont see any real reason to delete it. the hart family is a very distinctive family in wrestling history and they should be acknowledged with their own page. Xchickenx 02:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe thing about Stu Hart saying that his family was his greatest accomplishment has been said by most of his children and his wife Helen.Maybe instead of saying it's his greatest accomplishment maybe it could say that his family was a great source of joy because it was besides wrestling and training wrestlers.You obviously have never read some of his interviews or seen Wrestling with Shadows.Maybe if you watch the movie or read his book, you'll get a better understanding of the man he was.I think that the list of his children should stay on his page but the family tree may just be too redundant.Just my opinion.(MgTurtle 02:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Keep, although head of the family Stu is not the subject of this article, just as the rest of the family is (mostly) still alive then a overarching article which can be linked to all the live articles is a big help, and will stop anyone duplicating this info on all the Hart pages. Darrenhusted 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not a fan of wrestling, but I am fully aware of the influence of the Hart family. Entirely notable. Smashville 02:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - undeniably notable for its impact on the world of professional wrestling, and fully justified in having its own article separate from Stu Hart and any of the others. 23skidoo 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; the Hart family's fairly extensive impact on wrestling means it has enough notability separate of Stu to warrant an article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. The family is incredibly notable separate from Stu Hart. The Hybrid 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article could also be merged into for some of the less notable members. I do think a few of the other "pro wrestling family" articles should be deleted. Dannycali 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Plus[edit]

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

Non-notable company that list a few clients for which they have done web design — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 2007/08/25 19:12:56

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

The result was delete. Given the tenor of apparent widespread and aggressive promotion, I am preemptively salting.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan O. Godfroid[edit]

Ivan O. Godfroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomofb (talk • contribs) 15:55, August 16, 2007

  • Keep well known belgian writer. Registred at OCLC: La Psychiatrie de la femme; Ivan O Godfroid ; Paris : Presses universitaires de France, 1999. OCLC 41253902 and Pacte de contrition : essai sur la folie ; Ivan O Godfroid ; Charleroi, Belgique : Socrate Éditions Promarex, 2005. OCLC 77535132. His scientific papers as psy are available on PubMed. SalomonCeb 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, published by a fake editor. (check what is exactly "Socrate Éditions Promarex" and laugh) Markadet fr 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A more detailed article on :fr clearly proves there are no quality sources about Mr Godfroid. French Tourist 05:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fake and lies... No notability. Clem23 06:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fake. Poppypetty 06:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy is currently demonstrated on the french WP [35] to be a lier and acting in a self-promotion manner to advance highly critical personal theories.--LPLT 07:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promarex is his own publishing house. If you except the books he writes and publish by himself at Promarex, there is only one book. Furthermore, this article doesn't pass and will never pass WP:V. Last point, this author and his sock puppets consider WP as an advertisement website for his work and pervert the goals of Wikipedia. --Bombastus 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fake. See my contribution on the french wiki. As said Promarex is his own publishing house. I also suspect that SalomonCeb is either a relative, a friend or a sock puppet. Pppswing 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Hoax, spam, and possibly attack, if the photo shown is an unaware third party. wikipediatrix 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Exactly as I was going to say. I suggest deletion. TheInfinityZero 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted above, there is also a deletion debate running now over at the French Wikipedia, one that seems full of indignation due to the apparent self-promotion, involving multiple articles about him and his books, including the creation of his own *category*. I note that the two OCLC numbers given above for his books do not work (click on them, Worldcat finds nothing). The lengthier article on him in the French Wikipedia is no more convincing than this one, which seems to have a promotional flavor. It's true he has articles on Wikipedias in many languages; someone has been busy. (The same anonymous contributor created articles on him in 13 Wikipedias, according to the French AfD). His book 'La psychiatrie de la femme' appears to be real. It was published in 1999 by PUF, a real publisher, but it is now out of print according to amazon.fr. EdJohnston 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete - As per Markadet fr. Cocoma 13:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. An important aspect of the whole case and the subsequent laws enacted was the Couey's background - i.e., his biography - so while he may be a BLP1E in some sense the focus on how he came to that event was the subject of intense notice and reaction. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Couey[edit]

John Couey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Merge. I think the content should be available but "focus on the victim" is important to minimize inspiring those seeking attention by committing crimes, as is a common psychological phenomena.
  • Delete. WP:NOT#INFO. Thousands of people are conicted of murder every year, and, under WP:BLP1E this does not automatically make this worthy of a biographical article. Plenty of people are convicted of murder and few of them satisfy the notability guidelines of wikipedia. See WP:Notability. Popkultur 19:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Few killers ever have State Laws passed because of their crimes, or create pushes for the passage of Federal Laws in order to attempt to protect other similar potential victims. Since Couey's crimes lead to the passage of "Jessica's Law", this article needs to stay.--Sterlsilver 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While being a murder is in and of itself not what makes a person notable the National media attention for 2 years and the laws created because of Couey, i.e. Jessica's Law and the Jessica Lunsford Act do in fact make him notable. Many people get indicted every year but do not have laws created because of them and do not appear on National media for over 2 years because of thier crimes, because of the National attention of his trial and the Laws created because of him I strongly feel that this article is to be kept.--Joebengo 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The way I see it, the bio of Couey is more worthy of Wikinews. I think that the notable event here is Jessica's Law, and I think that Couey ought to redirect to Jessica's Law, with the notable facts of the case merged into it. I very well may be mistaken, but that's how I understand the policies on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popkultur (talk • contribs) 19:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with the victim's page. While all of the events for which this man is famous are related to the murder, they are noteworthy enough to be considered distinct. First, he committed the murder. Second, Jessica's Law was passed. Third, the Jessica Lunsford Act was proposed. Fourth, he was sentenced to death (and will presumably be executed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juansmith (talk • contribs) 19:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with the victim's page. Although it is true that "thousands of people are conicted [sic] of murder every year", the Afd nominator conveniently ignored the coverage of this case for years and the social and legal sequelae resulting from the murder that are recounted on this page. Ward3001 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi - please assume good faith. I'm not trying to ignore any facts. It just seems to me that this article ignores WP:BLP1E (Cover the event, not the person.) If there is legal and social fallout, then I feel that is best documented an article about the event, rather than splitting this content between articles. Regards - Popkultur 00:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jessica Lunsford. There's no reason to split this content between two articles, though that may change if Couey's death penalty appeals become independently noteworthy. But that hasn't happened yet. THF 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jessica Lunsford. Couey was a convicted sex offender who was living near a young child and therefor raped and killed her. The ill-fated faults of our country's judicial system needs to be known. Thismightbezach 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant national news coverage of this convicted murderer, laws have been established because of the child that he murdered. Clearly meets WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:N. Jauerback 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jauerback. Alex 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has recieved enough coverage that it is noteworthy of a biography. I also don't feel that it should be merged. For example Scott Peterson has his own bio, as does Laci. This case, while not gaining as much media coverage as the Peterson case, did get enough coverage. It was live on all of the new channels I could find. West 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jessica Lunsford. Neither person is notable individually; it's the murder which propelled each of them into the spotlight. - Brian Kendig 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Plainly meets WP:BIO, given the coverage both of his crime and his court case. Coverage of the trial and any future appeals makes more sense here than in the article about the victim, just as the detailed coverage of the crime's prompting of Jessica's Law is slightly better suited for discussion there. MrZaiustalk 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how is this even up for debate? Of course he meets WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:V. He's all over the news. Betaeleven 12:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per WP:NOT#NEWS. Sad to say, but these rape/killings are way too common in the world these days and without sounding insensitive, I fail to see much historic notability for this one over the others Corpx 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge applicable information to Jessica Lunsford per the several comments above. —Travistalk 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jessica Lunsford, which per recent practice should be renamed after the notable case rather than the unfortunate victim, per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS or to Jessica's Law. Edison 03:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page should obviously be on wikipedia and he is notable, we cant just say that the john article should be deleted because its about a rapist and murderer.if someone is notable they are.and the page on simple wkipedia makes him even more notable.--Zingostar 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the unusual infamy of the crime, especially after the names of innocent people at most tangentially involved (his relatives) are deleted. This case, disgusting as it may be, will be remembered for years far outside of the area in which it was tried. Wikipedia has an article on Bruno Hauptmann, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 21:21, August 30, 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. — TKD::Talk 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Blum[edit]

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

Professor with lots of journal citations but does this pass WP:PROF? was tagged speedy on notability grounds, tag was removed by creator, and re-tagged, I declined and broght it here instead Carlossuarez46 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly, this posting meeting WP:PROF on notability grounds. I am in the midst of adding all of the citations as I just added this wiki today. The criteria, as I understand it, is:

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.


Dr. Blum has been recognized in many different ways. Here are some examples:

ELECTED: Publication Committee - Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research Nomination Committee - Research Society on Alcoholism Scientific Advisory Committee - International Neurotoxicology Congress, Italy Council Member - Gordon Research Conferences Chairman - Steering Committee for Program on Gordon Research Conferences on Alcohol Chairman, First International Congress on Neurogenetics of Alcoholism Chairman, Fifth World Congress on Biological Psychiatry, Alcoholism, Florence, Italy Chairman, Alcohol Research, Gordon Research Conference (1978, 1884). Chairman, Psychoneurogenetics, Gordon Research

AWARDS: 1970 Awarded Colonel of The State of Tennessee by Governor Winford Dunn 1974-76 National Institute of Drug Abuse Carrier Teacher Award 1972 American Chemical Society Speaker Award 1988 Visiting Scientist, Douglas Hospital Research Centre, McGill University 1988 Finalist, Mind Science Foundation "Imagineer Award" 1990 John B. Sullivan Presidential Excellence Award for Treatment and Research 1990 Nursing Health Consultants Outstanding Achievement Award 1994 YMCA Achievement Award

INVITED SPEAKER: Presented over 300 lectures on "Social Pharmacology" across approximately 40 states in America, as well as Europe, Scandinavia, Mexico, Canada, USSR, and the Orient. 1974 Lecture Opener for Southwestern Teachers Commission on Drug Abuse, Knoxville, TN 1976 Program Speaker, Annual Meeting of the California Medical Association, San Francisco, CA 1976 Speaker and Workshop Coordinator, Anesthesiology Conference, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 1976 Speaker, Ohio Drug Abuse Institute, Columbus, OH 1977 Task Force Member, National Free Clinic, National Drug Abuse Conference, San Francisco, CA 1979 Speaker, Annual Texas Commission on Alcoholism Institute, Austin, TX 1979 Speaker, Workshop on Drugs of Abuse, Big Springs, Texas Hospital Scientific seminar on "Alcohol Research" presented to staff, Toxicology Branch, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C., Harvard Medical School, NIDA-ARC, as well as over 50 research seminars to major universities in the U.S and abroad. RESEARCH: 1974 Chairman, Behavioral Pharmacology, Session at ASPET Meeting in Montreal, Canada 1976 Guest Speaker, Seventh Technical Review on Drug Interaction, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington, D.C. 1977 Chairman, Alcohol Session, ASPET Meeting, Columbus, OH 1977 Chairman, Marijuana Session, National Drug Abuse Conference, San Francisco, CA 1977 Task Force Member, Psychiatry Task Force, National Drug Abuse Conference, San Francisco, CA 1977 Task Force Member, Research Task Force, National Drug Abuse Conference, San Francisco, CA 1978 National Chairperson, Pharmacology and Research Task Force, National Drug Abuse Conference 1979 General Chairman, Gordon Research Conference on Alcohol 1979 Chairman, International Congress of Neurotoxicology, "The Biological Basis for Alcoholism," Varese, Italy 1979 Chairman, Pharmacology Alcohol Sessions - Federation meetings, Dallas, TX 1982 General Chairman, Gordon Research Conference on Alcohol 1996 General Chairman, Gordon Research Conference on Psychoneurogenetics Presented seminars on alcoholism research at major universities, governmental agencies and sponsored societies including: Special Guest Invitation of Correo Medico Magazine Conference on Drug Dependence. "The Psychogenetic Theory of Drug Seeking Behavior,” Milan, Italy, 1982. PAGE 10 Selected as Scientific Leader of delegation to Union of the Soviet Union Socialist Republic (Russia) (U.S. Professional Seminars, Inc.) on "Addictions," 1984. Keynote Speaker - "Genotype Theory of Alcohol Seeking Behavior." Current Research Trends, San Francisco, CA, July, 1985. Workshop Presenter - "Alcoholism: Research into Biogenetics and Cure." Texas Commission on Alcoholism, Austin, TX, Summer Alcohol Studies Institute, August, 1985. Symposia Presenter - "Animal and Human Evidence for the Genotype Theory in Alcohol Seeking Behavior." International IV World Congress on Biological Psychiatry," Philadelphia, PA, September, 1985. Invited Lecturer - "Biogenetics of Alcoholism." Friends Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, October, 1985. Presenter - "Alcoholism - A Genotypic Disease." First World Congress on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Tel Aviv, Israel, December, 1985. Scientific Leader - U.S. Exchange Tour of China. Invited by the Peoples Republic of China. China Association for Science and Technology (sponsor), March 18 to April 5, 1986. Grand Rounds - “Alcoholism: Searching the Solution." University of Arkansas, College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Little Rock, AK, November, 1985. Grand Rounds - "Noval Neurochemical Approach to Alcoholism." The University of Texas Health Science Center, Department of Psychiatry, Dallas, TX, November, 1986. Keynote Speaker - "Designer Drugs." North Texas Psychiatric Society, Dallas, TX, November, 1986. Scientific presentation - Institute of Clinical Research of Montreal, Canada, April, 1987. Seminar - Douglas Hospital Research Centre, Montreal, Canada, April, 1987. Seminar - Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto and The University of Toronto, Canada, April, 1987. Chairman - Neuotoxicology Congress, Alcoholism Session, Italy, June, 1987. Invited Speaker - Second-West, "Assault on Alcoholism: A neurobiological Disease," Phoenix, AZ, March, 1988. Seminar - National Drug Research Centre and University of Malaysia, Dept. of Pharmacology, March, 1988. Selected Participant and Symposium Speaker - XVI C.I.N.P. Congress, München, Germany, 1988. One of six Americans lectured at the first Soviet-American Conference on Alcoholism, Moscow, 1989. Co-chairman on Alcoholism Session - Fifth World Congress on Biological Psychiatry, Italy, 1991. Keynote Speaker, Pacific Chemical Dependency Institute, Hawaii, 1991. Invited Speaker, National Academy of Science, East Berlin, 1991. Chairman, C.I.N.P., XVII Molecular Genetics of Compulsive Diseases, Nice, 1992. Plenary Speaker, 25th Anniversary Conference Haight Ashbury Medical Free Clinic, 1992. Chairman, "International Congress on Amino Acid Therapy", Crete, Greece, 1993 Chairman, World Congress in Psychiatry - Molecular Genetics Symposium, Rio de Janeiro, June 6-13, 1993 European Society of Neuroscience, Biological Psychiatry Symposium, Vienna, Austria, July 1994 Chairman, Molecular Genetic Symposium- Biological Psychiatry, Nice, France, 1996 Talks not yet given: American Society of Addiction Medicine, Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback Invited speaker- International Meeting on “Implications of Comorbidity for Etiology and Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Disorders “ - October 19-23. Mazagon (Huelva) Spain, 2005. OTHER: 1961 Bigelow Research Fellowship Award, Columbia University 1966-1968 American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education Fellow Award, New York Medical College 1967 National Science Foundation Summer Fellowship Award, New York Medical College 1969 Personalities of the South, Listed 1970 American Chemical Society Tour Speaker Plaque Award 1970 National Association of Retail Druggist Citation of Honor 1971-1972 Two-Thousand Men of Achievement, Listed 1973 Intercontinental Biographical Association 1974-1977 Career Teachers Award in Substance Abuse - NIDA 1975 & 1982 Who's Who in the South and Southwest 1976 Personalities of the South, listed in Bicentennial Edition 1979 National Free Clinic Council, Inc., Board of Directors, Southwest Region Representative 1979 Who's Who in the South and Southwest 1979 Citation of Honor, Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) 1979 Certificate of Merit for Substance Abuse Service to the Community, St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX 1979 Lions Club Speaking Service Award 1979-1986 American Men and Women in Science 1979 & 1982 Gordon Research Award 1981 Humanitarian Award - Columbian University (College of Pharmacy 20th Year Reunion) 1984 & 1985 Who's Who in Frontiers of Science and Technology 1985 Expert Drug Consultant for Scott Forseman, New Health Text 1985 Distinguished Contributor to the Definition of Alcoholism for the World Book Encyclopedia (To be published in 1989 edition) 1985-present Six scientific patents issued U.S. Patent Office (Principal and Co-Inventor), Two Canadian Patents, eleven European Patents issued, One Japanese Patent pending, One PCT patent pending in 45 countries, one USA patent Pending, One Provisional patent pending. 1987 Contributor to 1987 Health and Medicine Annals - World Book. 1987 Selected Distinguished Speaker List - Evaluation Research Associates, Syracuse, NY 1988 Issuance, USA Patent #4,701,421 1989 Mind Science Foundation Award 1989 Issuance, USA Patent #4,844,866 (see other patents). 1990 Addictives Treatment Directory 1990 Who's Who in American Inventors 1992 Honorary Diplomat, Addictions Board of Certification, American Academy of Addictionology & Compulsive Disorders 1998 Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, St. Martins College, Milwaukee WI.


3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].

Dr. Blum has extensive publications, as well as work that has been the basis for textbooks and course work.


4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

Dr. Blum's collective body of work is very significant and well-known, and further study by NIDA and other bodies at NIH have validated his initial findings relating to the DRD2 receptors and the corresponding genes.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Dr. Blum is known for originating the idea that alcoholism is associated with the Dopamine D2 Receptor gene as well as the concept of Reward Deficiency Syndrome with has been published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine - a peer review medical journal.


6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Awards and honors previously mentioned.

Brianmeshkin 23:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Brianmeshkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have time to go into this in the detail it deserves, but he's a full professor with literally hundreds of publications in peer-reviewed journals, including multiple in prestigious general journals such as Science, Nature and PNAS, and several more in top-quality medical journals such as JAMA and Lancet. He's lead author on the JAMA dopamine D2 paper for which Google Scholar shows 314 citations [36]; the dopamine D2 paper in Arch Gen Psychiatr shows 183 citations, & the Reward Deficiency Syndrome paper 137 citations (though note there are a number of distinct "K Blum"s here.) Seems to readily meet my interpretation of WP:PROF. Suggest withdrawal. Espresso Addict 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- agree with withdrawing the nom. The article beyond the lede can be blanked though: WP shouldn't be a mirror of someone's resume. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs heavy pruning and wikification, but the subject is clearly notable. Alansohn 06:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and heavily pruned it. Hidden inside the article were also WP:BLP problems where the author attacked Blum's critics as lacking credentials. A good a reason as any to heavily trim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 21:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For those who don't know: it's an academic's job to publish. Hundreds of non-notable professors have long, but thin publication lists. Is he the first author on all the articles listed above? I doubt it. If a student in his lab publishes a paper, they automatically put his name on it as a courtesy, even if he did no work on it. WP:PROF recommends that where expert knowledge would be needed to judge work, that textbook authorship or general media be looked for. Did he publish anything that was written up in Time, Newsweek, or the New York Times? I note that supporters rush to insist on Keep here, but still haven't put references into the aritcle. I wish as much effort went into improving articles as goes into saving them from AfD. MarkBul 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blum is the first author on a great many of these papers. There's no reason to require coverage in mainstream press to justify the inclusion of an academic; science coverage in particular in such sources is often abysmal. Personally, I wish that as much effort went into selecting articles to bring to AfD as it should. This one was AfD'd within hours of creation with what appears to have been no research whatsoever. Espresso Addict 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sounds like somewhere under the onslaught of citations he might satisfy WP:PROF, but please do not spam the AFD discussion with things like "Awarded Colonel of The State of Tennessee" and all the "Who's Who" type publications, which in no way satisfy WP:PROF. Edison 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Confessions of Georgia Nicolson. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Snog Fest Begin!: Georgia Nicolson's Guide to Life and Luuurve[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Let the Snog Fest Begin!: Georgia Nicolson's Guide to Life and Luuurve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally unnotable, probably opened for advertising. Previously had a speedy delete tag on it that was removed without any justification being given. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In about 30 seconds, I found one site attesting the book's use in World Book Day, and added it to the article as a reference; I'm sure that other reliable sources are out there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional schools[edit]

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

Collection of largely-unrelated topics, mostly consisting of trivial entries, which should only be served as a category, combining the few notable examples. Eyrian 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Gilliam 05:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I do not think we need to through unrelated works of fiction, and make a list of common things that appear in them. This is loosely associated Corpx 14:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or reorganize into a category of fictional schools, if one doesn't already exist. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This list appears to be, as Corpx stated above, a list of common, but unimportant, parts of fiction. TheInfinityZero 17:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize - and delete current list article. I think the fact that a "school" (of any grade? Of any type? Of any location?) appears in fiction is a little too lose for a list. A category, as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles mentioned above, would serve the purpose of information organization well. ◄Zahakiel► 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely no need for this article. Fails WP:NOT#DIR. TheIslander 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TheInfinityZero. Only a handful of the schools mentioned have articles so I don't see what a category would achieve. Dbromage [Talk] 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is far preferable to a category, since I'd rather not see individual articles about fictional elementary schools, high schools, colleges, etc.. In most family comedies and dramas, the school is an important setting that the audience can identify with. In this case, a single article takes care of linking the fictional setting to a particular work, which is something that a category can't do. Leave it here so it doesn't spread like acne over a Wikipedian's forehead. Mandsford 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Let's not speculate about what might or might not be written in the future. Articles about fictional schools can be dealt with individually on their merits. Fictional schools that already have articles have a good to snowball chance of surviving an AFD anyway. Dbromage [Talk] 02:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Readers who are that interested in the subject of a school linked to a particular fictional work are probably going to take the time to read about the work itself as well, so there's no need for a list of them. A categorized set of schools, each one linking (obviously) to the work with which it is associated is going to be just as easy, if not easier, to access for interested parties than a list of all the fictional schools there are on Wikipedia. ◄Zahakiel► 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since its agreed that fictional schools can be notable, a list of them that gives more information than a category is useful for navigation and browsing. DGG (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree that fictional schools can be notable but that does not mean that all fictional schools are notable. Dbromage [Talk] 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, replacing with a category is a stupid idea as usual. Kappa 08:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with your "usual" arguments against categorization, but I willing to be educated if you can describe it constructively and civilly. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a meaningful literary tradition of using the same institutions in multiple works by different authors. I might suggest restricting the list to those institutions which do appear in multiple literary or other works by multiple authors, such as Miskatonic University. --Hanging Jack 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC) — Hanging Jack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (moved from discussion below to proper place by DGG)[reply]
  • Keep. A category does not allow the identification of the work in which the school appears. older ≠ wiser 01:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add narrative -- Roleplayer 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This should not be changed into a category because most of the fictional schools don't even have articles. And if this is deleted, MANY other similar lists have to be deleted as well (e.g. List of fictional islands). So I would certainly keep this article.CheckeredFlag200 22:45, 5 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. — TKD::Talk 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists related to the International Churches of Christ[edit]

The "lists related to the International Churehes of Christ" are not notable. The International Churches of Christ are notable, but the little related organisations, and the different kind of "nick" names of ICOC are not.--TransylvanianKarl 07:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP is not a directory + trivial information Corpx 14:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a meaningful literary tradition of using the same institutions in multiple works by different authors. I might suggest restricting the list to those institutions which do appear in multiple literary or other works by multiple authors, such as Miskatonic University. --Hanging Jack 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC) — Hanging Jack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (moved by DGG to correct discussion--see comment below).[reply]
  • Delete in its present form, and if important enough, make into a Navigation box.DGG (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unuseful -- Roleplayer 00:15, 3 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. — TKD::Talk 07:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael kuluva[edit]

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

this is a resume, not an encyclopedia article. a "Junior Olympian" is not notable. the Junior Olympics were for intermediate and juvenile level skaters. Notable skaters are junior and senior level. Unlike other countries, the US doesn't really have a "national team". Skating at the national level means nothing unless you're skating at the highest level, which is senior. And this page doesn't assert notablity as a professional skater, either. Awartha 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 03:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provo Hockey League[edit]

Provo_Hockey_League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Delete Not a notable league

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuck85 (talk • contribs) 2007/08/21 05:13:15

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, no reliable third party sources. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you have a problem with it not having references, you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - What do the references have to do with it? It's clearly not notable. It's a pee wee hockey organization in Provo, Utah. Smashville 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: It is the responsibility of an editor challenged to demonstrate sources or notability to provide the same, not for the challengers to prove that such do not exist. Feel free.  RGTraynor  13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable children's hockey league. --Djsasso 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Krm500 10:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ccwaters 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Pparazorback 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy. — TKD::Talk 04:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Mukherjee[edit]

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

Looks like it's supposed to be a userpage... Ke Don 22:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy and Delete the creator has made his user and user talk pages as redirects to this article, and no assertion of notability as encyclopedia entry. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to userspace. This started at User:Sandipjee and was moved here about a month ago. User:Sandipjee just needs to be deleted so this can be moved back. --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Edward Niksa[edit]

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

Seems to be a vanity article; doing a google search returns no releavant results except for the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo (talk • contribs) 2007/08/15 06:46:27

Shift to the user's page? The nominator is right - looks like an accident. Anarchia 11:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle (band)[edit]

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

prior WP:PROD 16 months ago; promotional tone, no albums, insufficiently prominent for encyclopedia article Lisasmall 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for now. Promotional tone is no excuse as that can be rewritten, and just because a band has released no albums does not mean they're not notable. This band apparently passes criterion 4 of WP:MUSIC for touring the Netherlands and the UK, and criterion 11 for being played on VPRO - all the article needs is sources. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC without WP:V sources to back up claims. Being played on VPRO is not the same as being placed in rotation on VPRO. Precious Roy 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete if reliable sources can't be found. Perhaps a fluent Dutch speaker could be of assistance here. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you have a problem with lack of references then you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They appear to assert some of the more basic requirements of WP:MUSIC but don't back them up with verification. If those are subtracted from the equation what's left does not meet WP:MUSIC. --WebHamster 11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough evidence of notability. Website (only external source on article) does not appear to have been updated since 2005. -- Roleplayer 00:18, 3 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 keep. The nominator has even agreed that a move and rewrite is an acceptable solution. — TKD::Talk 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villárvattam[edit]

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

After reviewing the creator's contributions, and the fact that there is an ongoing AfD for another article that the author created, I believe this article should be deleted. It needs to be completely rewritten and perhaps moved to Raja Thoma Villarvattom. There definitely was a Hindu King who converted to Christianity. After his death, however, his lands passed to the Paliath Achan. This article makes a lot of dubious claims:

  • Villarvattom being an Empire.
  • Villarvattom conquering Muziris.
  • The Villarvattom dynasty existing from the 10th to the 14th century.
  • The Villarvattom dynasty being the most powerful Emprire in Ancient Kerala.
  • "King" Itty Thomman who was apparently the first king. Actually, he was a Syrian Christian Vicar who was also a local leader and led resistance efforts against the imposition of Roman Catholicism by the Portuguese.

Needless to say all of these claims are unsourced and I cannot find anything that will corroborate these claims. --vi5in[talk] 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It would be better remove the unsourced content than deleting the article Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 11:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, the article should be deleted, because Villarvattom doesn't describe a Christian King. It describes a town/city/principality. A new article called Raja Thoma Villarvattom should be created, with proper information. --vi5in[talk] 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok, will do that. I'll also create an article under Villarvattam so that it doesn't redirect to the new article. --vi5in[talk] 16:15, 1 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 close. As noted, this isn't the forum for reporting non-speedy copyright violations. In this case, the URL in question is dated July 15, 2007, while we've had similar text for at least months before that. — TKD::Talk 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Ribeiro[edit]

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

Reason Shinri baka 12:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC) It is exactly same as what is written on Shaolin's website; which violates copy-right issue, check Shaolin's official website and see for yourself Vitor 'Shaolin' Ribeiro's official website Shinri baka 12:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep You should list it at WP:CV then, and besides, this seems like a clear-cut case where it's our content being stolen.  east.718 at 17:58, August 21, 2007 
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 07:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeshifter (band)[edit]

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

This band seems to fail WP:MUSIC 1redrun Talk 11:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC TheInfinityZero 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - They've been on a large national tour of Australia as part of Big Day Out[37], won two awards in what seems to be a fairly major music awards program[38], have been featured in The Age[39], NZ Musician[40] and elsewhere. I'd be more inclined to keep if their albums were on a notable record label, but I think they're a little over the WP:MUSIC bar with all that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional information makes it an easy Keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known within NZ and - to a lesser extent - Australia. Several releases on Kog (which is NZ's biggest techno/electronica label), two bNet award wins, two overseas tours, appearances at the Big Day Out, and live performance on Radio New Zealand are all enough for it to easily satisfy the WP:MUSIC notability requirements (points 4, 5, 8, and 12 of the notability requirements, of which it needs to pass only one). How anyone can claim that it has failed these requirements is beyond me. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With a little additional info added, it is now clear that it passes WP:MUSIC. --Limegreen 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - there doesn't really seem to be a great deal of consensus, but things seem to be leaning towards keep. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Say! 7[edit]

Hey! Say! 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a non-notable "temporary" group that makes enough assertion of notability to avoid speedy. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. JodyB yak, yak, yak 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copypasta from the article's discussion page:

I don't see any notability issues here, as it is explicitly mentioned on the Lovely Complex wiki page as the 2nd opening/ending theme. Furthermore Tegomass, which did the first op/ed and is another Johnny Jimusho temp group, has its own page, and there doesn't seem to be any qualms about deletion there. If anything, the notability of both bands are for intents and purposes equal and notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.82.188 (talk) 21:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd say keep because this is notable: They made a #1 single, but the thing is that if we want to keep this article, please cite any references and/or sources. Bigtop 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For one week then plummeted to #7 with ever decreasing sales. So yes they charted (most likely as a fad) then died not what I'd describe as notable event, more likely a manipulation of of marketing forces. They certainly didn't get there by their own efforts. --WebHamster 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment certainly not my thing, so I won't !vote, but if they charted, they charted, and i don;t think we decide notability in anything based on our own individual judgment of the artistic merit of the guys. DGG (talk) 18:57, 1 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 all. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Good[edit]

I'm Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article can never go beyond a tracklisting and a infobox. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales and many of them are not even official. It is a non-notable and trivial article. ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fall under the same reasons as above:

Mick Boogie - Kanye Essentials: First Semester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Get Well Soon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Akademiks: Jeanius Level Musik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Akademiks: Jeanius Level Musik 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kon the Louis Vitton Don (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The High School Graduate Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • If mixtapes rarely if ever receive reviews, why is the #1 google hit a review of this mixtape? Kappa 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, maybe this one is one of the "Rare" ones. My point is though these are all non-notable articles, what can you add to the article from that review? its all an opinion of somebody, there is no news or any significant coverage of these tapes. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't use any of 'The best of these new tracks is the unrelentingly rousing modern-day hip-hop epic, "2 Words", which features guest appearances from Mos Def, Freeway, and the Harlem Boys' Choir. Over the rolling thump of a thunderous drum kit, harpsichord lines tumble into butter-smooth electric guitar licks, while frenetic soulful wails provide the perfect canvas for Mos', Kanye's, and Freeway's relentless rhymes. However, this is all before Kanye breaks the song down for a stirring a cappela section from the Harlem Boys' Choir, which gives way to a frenzied stutter-step hip-hop hoe-down featuring a turbulent violin solo to close (that's right, I did say violin solo!)....The most amazing aspect of the track, though, is that it marks Kanye's characteristic mastery of balancing an "underground" hip-hop aesthetic, with elements from the mainstream"'? Kappa 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well. No you can't really. It mostly opinion. But dont you all get the nomination, its because there non-notable. Loads of mixtapes have been deleted recently. People are cracking down on them unless they are notable. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you are nominating them in accordance with WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Why didn't you just say that, I wouldn't have wasted my time refuting the nomination. Kappa 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - None of the above mixtapes appear to be official, probably compiled by random DJs whom aren't associated with West himself. If it was official, for example You Know What It Is Vol. 3, then they could be kept, but West most likely had nothing to do with these mixtapes. --- Realest4Life 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Your example, You Know What It Is Vol. 3, is only able to be kept because it is semi-notable with information about sales with reviews etc. These, even if they were official do not have any of those and are not notable enough to ever have them. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Even if these are official, it fails WP:N. I did a Google search of each of the mixtapes on Kanye West discography#Mixtapes and only 1 or 2 have reviews. This is definitely not what WP:N calls "significant coverage" that addresses "the subject directly in detail". With a typical album, you have background info, production, sales, chart performance, reception from a wide range of music critics etc. But these mixtapes can never have this kind of info. Spellcast 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per lack of reliable third-party sources. Cool Hand Luke 15:16, 4 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. — TKD::Talk 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sopranos (mixtape)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable mixtape released by Young Buck. It can never grow into a full article like any normal albums because mixtapes rarely receive any reviews or many sales. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting with an infobox. ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. --- Realest4Life 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No multiple, non-trivial mentions of this tape. Just a track listing. Spellcast 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fring[edit]

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

This article had been speedied several times as CSD G11. DRV overturned that result for the last, sourced version. Still, weak delete as excessively advertorial, pending other opinions. Xoloz 09:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Keep I don't consider it an advertisement, but I understand why Xoloz feels it is. Shalom Hello 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has been edited, please let me know if its up to scratch now. Goplett 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC) — Goplett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete It's pretty clear that a number of sock puppets have been created exclusively for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote this non-notable company. Examples are Smaunsell, Seital, Goplett and Shara77. If the consensus is to keep the article, the "Features" list on the article should be removed, as well as "Milestones," as these seem to promote the company rather than describe it. Furthermore, the secondary sources used to justify the article should come from news outlets other than the website of the company itself. 76.173.17.102 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on balance, I think. The content is advertorial in style, and the references all appear to be traceable back to press releases and other non-independent sources. I don't think this is making its mark, and I suspect that the article is part of a campaign to fix that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I use it and love any minutes of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.124.52 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable; promotional; too few secondary sources to support an article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertizing (perhaps not blatant under WP:CSD#G11) for a non-notable product but notability is clearly not there. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 5 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 no consensus. There appears to be agreement that at least some of the material should be kept somewhere. The specifics of a rename or a merge can be settled on the appropriate talk pages. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov[edit]

Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Since when our encyclopaedia has been expanded to include drawn-out comparisons between works of art, peppered with tons of opinions expressed by other artists? The idea of Joyce and Proust or Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina or Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11 articles may be fun but it is inherently not encyclopaedic. It results in loosely constructed essay-like entries full of POV opinions and original research. I suggest merging the text back to Boris Godunov (opera). --Ghirla-трёп- 09:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welll, the text has been returned to the main Boris article. This should basically end the argument on what should go where. May I please now blank out the article for speedy deletion or wait until we are done talking?
BTW, while you're at it, maybe someone should look at the main Boris page and explain how that has escaped the censure this article has received. It is for the most part not documented and is actually poorly organized and written. I'd done some clean-up before splitting off Rimsky and Shostakovich, but it's still fairly shaky stuff. Jonyungk 06:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the original article ("Dmitriy Shostakovich edited Boris Godunov in 1939–1940. He confined ... do more than simply accompany the singers.[1]") got lost in the merge. If a merge is the consensus outcome (which I'm not convinced of), that paragraph should be retained, probably at the beginning of the Shostakovich section of the Boris article. Michael Bednarek 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now. The original place for that paragraph was where you are suggesting it should go. All I did in the merge is reverse the edits taking the material out of the the main Boris article. Jonyungk 15:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much wrong with the material whether in a separate article or not placed. It appears that one user User:Ivan Velikii sometimes working as an IP has been steadily working on the opera article for over a year. You joined in in the last month and contributed in the same style. I think the article could do with some inline referencing, particularly indicating where the commentators said things, and slight wikifying. (A quote at the top is not standard wiki practice.) But if that were done it would probably get through as a GA candidate reasonably easily. But such discussion probably should be in the main article talk page--Peter cohen 10:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the inline referencing and wikifying. I'd kept the roughly the same style as User:Ivan Velikii deliberately, mainly to avoid anything along the lines of "Hey, you ruined my article!" or anything like that. (Strange to say in line with the current discussion but that's my mind for you.) Doing just those things would go a fair ways toward streamlining and shortening the article, plus (at least for me) making it easier to read. Or maybe I should leave well enough alone and let Ivan do it? Jonyungk 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Boris Godunov (opera) per nom. -- Kleinzach 09:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to where it should be per Ghirla. Moreschi Talk 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ghirlandajo, maybe userfy the original article Alex Bakharev 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep, perhaps rename as per Henry Flower below per nom. Now changed as the existing opera article is already very long (I don't say too long), & per some arguments below. Johnbod 14:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename 'Reorchestrations of Boris Godunov'. This is excellent content, impeccably cited, and in much greater depth than would be appropriate in the main Boris Godunov page. Spin-off pages are exactly what we do when we have a lot of content on on particular aspect of a topic: keep a short summary on the main page, and link to this one.
The reason given for merging is completely flawed. This is not 'a comparison between works of art'; it's an in-depth exploration of one aspect of one work of art, as my suggested renaming would make clear. HenryFlower 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Impeccably cited"? The article opens with a pile of heavily biased opinions on the opera's perceived "technical shortcomings: weak or faulty harmony, counterpoint, part-writing, and orchestration". These are someone's personal opinions and, even if sourced, they will not become less judgmental on that account. The page reads like an essay, so Template:Essay-entry is probably in order. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply untrue. The intro says, "it has received an inordinate amount of criticism" on these points: that is a statement of fact, not of opinion. HenryFlower 12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment The size of the article could be reduced by splitting off the discography (and perhaps other sections) into a separate page(s). -- Kleinzach 08:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The other possible pairings given as analogies are much more distant, & the comparison does not take account of the special circumstances of this one. Rename per the specialists. DGG (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but provide more of a summary in Boris Godunov (opera) - The main article is too long to merge it directly into, but it ignores Shostakovich's version almost entirely, which is wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have problems with some of the arguments made on both sides. First, the multiple verions are regarded as mainstream options for performing the opera. Schoenberg's orchestrations of the Brahms Piano Quartets (surprised they don't have articles) are very much recreations intending to produce a very different sound world andthus different works which happen to have the same notes in the same order as the originals. The alternative performing versions of Boris are attemtps to "fix" what were seen to be technical mistakes by Mussorgsky. However, because of this, I think they should be covered in the main article. Ideally I would expect sound samples so that readers can hear how the coronation scene sounds in the different orchestrations and decide what version they might want to buy a recording of. As for size, the two articles combined don't come to much over 60K. This isn't huge, especially as the listy stuff, such as discography, roles and references don't count towards the recommendations on article size.--Peter cohen 13:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever we decide, there's information here worth keeping. Someone should also inform the creator about this AfD. --Folantin 08:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be cleaned up and made NPOV with relatively little trouble. All the material currently in it was taken from the main Boris article, which was not cited and, perhaps to my fault, not corrected sooner, as I was tied up incorporating peer review suggestions on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. The entire reason I spun off the current article is that (1) the main Boris article is much too long and (2) the opera's history at Rimsky's and Shotstakovich's hands does bear a special history in its own right. Jonyungk 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No matter what eventually happpens to this article, the main Boris article as it currently stands is a total mess, organizationally speaking. It needs to be streamlined and perhsps shortened considerably. Jonyungk 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am also all for HenryFlower's suggestion for renaming this article "Reorchestrations of Boris Godunov" provided it remains as a separate article. Jonyungk 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other articles devoted to re-orchestrations? If we are going to treat the Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions as essentially distinct from the original then we should have two new articles, making three in all. -- Kleinzach 01:54, 2 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 keep. Chaser - T 03:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Last (band)[edit]

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

This is one in a series of articles speedy deleted as CSD A7, regarding an entrant in the TV show America's Got Talent. DRV overturned these deletions, finding an appearance on the show constituted an assertion of notability. I considered a group listing for all of these, but decided that each entrant might have a different degree of press coverage, and have so listed separately. The argument for deletion is a failure to meet WP:BIO. Xoloz 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: unlike some of the others, this one seems to have a couple of independent sources (the two interviews), which is better than most of these I've looked at (which have none). I'm leaning towards a very, very weak keep on that basis, but I haven't had time to review the sources for depth and reliability yet. Xtifr tälk 02:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have been the subject of multiple nontrivial 3rd party reliable sources. ♫ Cricket02 08:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Additionally what is notable about being part of what is ultimately a generic talent show-cum-reality show, other than that their achievements as a band don't even come close to satisfying WP:MUSIC.--WebHamster 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outside of AGT they have no notability. This is basically a 15 minute of fame transference, not actual earned fame.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the information in the press coverage, they do seem to have some minor notability independent of AGT. They seem to have over half a dozen TV credits (including an appearance on Drake and Josh and the title song for Krypto the Superdog), several notable concert appearances, and a handful of marginally notable awards. Xtifr tälk 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - just scrape through on notability imo -- Roleplayer 03:16, 6 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 keep and move. Chaser - T 04:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Millers[edit]

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

This is one in a series of articles speedy deleted as CSD A7, regarding an entrant in the TV show America's Got Talent. DRV overturned these deletions, finding an appearance on the show constituted an assertion of notability. I considered a group listing for all of these, but decided that each entrant might have a different degree of press coverage, and have so listed separately. The argument for deletion is a failure to meet WP:BIO. Incidentally, this particular article had a prior AfD in October 2006, which closed as keep. Xoloz 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Move to Clayton Miller Band. A quick search did reveal many trivial mentions such as in blogs but they have also been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. which meets criteria for inclusion per music notability. I've added a few. [41],[42] ♫ Cricket02 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. My opinion remains the same as in the first AfD debate: this group has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. In fact, I could find no third-party sources whatsoever that provided any information outside their appearances on America's Got Talent (season 1) over a year ago. As before, I would support a Redirect to that article, which already contains almost everything here. -- Satori Son 13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This band has been the subject of multiple nontrivial published works, which meets WP:Music criterion for inclusion. Nothing says that it has to be "outside their appearances" on the program. ♫ Cricket02 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that The Millers are not the subject of those articles, the television show is. The information on the band itself is extremely minimal. -- Satori Son 10:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 25 references with only 2-3 relating to the show and removed original research. As stated below, many are articles copied to the band's website but authors are cited and therefore no real reason to believe these references are not reliable. Hope it helps to preserve this article. I've come across much less notable than this band. ♫ Cricket02 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references you added concern "The Clayton Miller Band", which is a different band than appeared on America's Got Talent (although it has some of the same members). If you would like to move this article in question to a new Clayton Miller Band article and make it primarily about that band, I would certainly not object. Otherwise, many of the references you added are irrelevant and should be removed. Thanks, Satori Son 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Clayton Miller Band are mentioned in the article so none of the references are irrelevant. Propse a redirect in either direction, at the discretion of admin. ♫ Cricket02 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with you about the relevance of your additions to this article, I have changed my opinion above as you suggested. Thanks, Satori Son 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point that most references regard the Clayton Miller Band and do in fact come from claytonmillerband.com. I support a move as well. ♫ Cricket02 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the band's web site pages contains pre-"America's Got Talent" press coverage; most of those articles are from the band's hometown of Lafayette, Indiana. One shows that LD Miller performed on America's Most Talented Kid in 2003. [43] lists more recent articles from the Journal & Courier, which I am not going to purchase. And here are two more articles from the band's recent visits to Illinois and Florida. I will not have time to integrate these sources into the article right now, but I can in the next few days if the AfD survives. TLK'in(ER) 06:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I've added some article references, copied versions retrieved from claytonmillerband.com. Although these are copied to the website, authors are cited and therefore no real reason to believe these references are not reliable. ♫ Cricket02 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of the two links listed above by Cricket02, the first is a throwaway mention in a list of other artists, which does not count as significant coverage. the second is a celebrity gossip blog which fails as not "significant coverage" as well as "reliability" reasons.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those links were early in the discussion. More have since been added to the article directly, and concensus so far has been to move and redirect. However, I'm sure the authors of these articles up for deletion would appreciate at least a glance at their article before an opinion is cast. ♫ Cricket02 03:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted above, mentions of the band itself are pretty trivial and do not rise above the level of listings. No substantive independent coverage from which a verifiably neutral article can be written. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as suggested above. -- Roleplayer 03:15, 6 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 merge and redirect to List of GURPS books. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Middle Ages I[edit]

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

This book costs $22.95 but fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Links to publisher and other GURPS products suggests this article also contravenes WP:NOSPAM. --Gavin Collins 08:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Steve Jackson Games. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 08:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see earlier mass nominations this week for significance of GURPs, that it reads like an advert is unfortunate and easily rectified, the price has now been deleted. GURPs source books are well researched and put together and because of the open nature of the game system the details can easily be adopted to other game systems. GURPs source books are a significant resource to RPGers (the proper kind, not the computer kind).KTo288 09:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GURPS is notable, this isn't per WP:BK. Percy Snoodle 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of GURPS books, possibly merge there. There may be better sources for this book, but it does predate widespread internet usage, so the existing reviews may not be easy to find. I do strongly disagree with your SPAM accusations here, the organization used in this case is logical, and not commercial in nature. Really, would you not expect a link to the publisher, or the rule-system for the game? I'm afraid that this isn't a case of SPAM at all, and you'd be better off not making that argument. There isn't even an external link to the SJG webpage on the book. FrozenPurpleCube 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge, or redirect - This seems like an attempt to delete multiple GURPS articles one at a time after the mass deletion failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rray (talk • contribs) 14:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is the sort of thing recommended when a mass nomination fails. However, I think in this case, a simpler and more effective solution would just to be redirect everything that lacks good sources or significant content. FrozenPurpleCube 14:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - I fail to understand why Gavin.collins, in spite of the usual suggestion to assume good faith, assumes that spammers are at work, rather than fans of the game. Not that any of this has much impact, the notability of the subject being the main issue. As an apprentice inclusionist, I'd incline to keep this article, but I won't throw a tantrum if it will be deleted and some information injected in List of GURPS books. --Goochelaar 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with List of GURPS books. There simply not enough content or sourcing here to justify a separate article. Merge for now with no prejudice to recreating the article with more content and sourcing at a later date. -Chunky Rice 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I'm inclined to think there are probably appropriate third-party references (at least in the form of reviews) out there somewhere for all of the GURPS sourcebooks, but I'd be OK with seeing List of GURPS books expanded with information merged from this article. I'm a little confused by the nominator's ongoing belief that all our coverage of GURPS is spam after the AfD discussion for the list... Gavin, is there some specific reason that you continue to view all these as spam? I don't find the articles to be in a particularly promotional style, and Steve Jackson Games doesn't need the Wikipedia's help to sell books... they've been doing that just fine by themselves for nearly thirty years. Pinball22 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Delete along with all other such game guides unless there is something really special, which has not been demonstrated in this case. . An article for the series will be more than enough. There seem to be zero references for notability of this title, and no cited published reviews. Mass noms are usually rejected when t here is some reason to think some but not al of the items notable. So is this particular one notable?. None of the keep arguements have given any evidence for that at all. DGG (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (correction: game guides or similar manuals--DGG)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think of RPG sourcebooks as "game guides" (at least, not in the sense that WP:NOT refers to) -- while they tell you how to play the game, since the game isn't a specific thing that's always the same, it's not the same level of "how to". I haven't found any really good references for this particular book yet, so as I said, I'm fine with seeing the basic information about it (and any others without significant third-party references) merged to List of GURPS books. There definitely is coverage out there for a lot of the GURPS books, though -- a search in rpg.net's reviews shows 260 results for GURPS, for example. Pinball22 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree to the extent that these books should not need to demonstrate that they are "really special" to be kept, merely that they are notable. -Chunky Rice 13:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a strained argument to call this a game guide. There's nothing in the article about running a medieval campaign, or making a character in it. The book *itself* might, through some tortured logic, be considered such, as the game itself is what you play with the book, which does provide instructions, but I do not believe that it was the section of WP:NOT is referring to, as it's not talking about the subject of articles, but the content. FrozenPurpleCube 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a bit of nit-picking is allowed, I am not sure that GURPS books can be judged under the criteria of book notabilty either. The guideline explicitly excludes from its scope some categories of works, among which reference works and instruction manuals, and GURPS books share something of both. This alone shows that a modicum of familiarity with the subject is needed to take part in a discussion, otherwise the very criteria under which to judge notability might not be the right ones. For those who are not familiar with role-playing games and GURPS in particular, they are are a particular form of storytelling needing imagination (provided by the players), rules (provided by handbooks like this one), and often some background material about the setting of the stories to be told (provided by the players and by any of a number of sources, among which again handbooks like this one - if you are going to play a story set in the middle ages, you better know something about it). This told, I agree that this particular book is not the most notable of the lot. --Goochelaar 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that does make sense to me, since they aren't novels or works of fiction on their own, so much as they are reference works and instruction manuals. And it's not the least notable of the lot. That would be GURPS Middle Age, the book on how to play a character over 40, but less than 65.  :) FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. — Dbromage [Talk] 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative_957[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Initiative_957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to the Washington State Secretary of State's election website, I-957 has been withdrawn by the sponsor. Also, WA-DOMA's website appears to have been closed down. If the initiative is dead and will not be on the ballot, I believe this article is no longer relevant. TechBear 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had to look for the list of initiatives proposed on the 2007 ballot, which I found at the Secretary of State's web site. Sure enough, 957 was withdrawn by the sponsor. Some of the others are interesting as well, like Initiative 971, which would mandate surgically implanting a GPS chip into the body of any violent criminal. Since Initiative 957 was withdrawn by the sponsor, and since anyone can apparently submit a ballot initiative whether it makes it onto the ballot or not, I vote to delete this article. Also, the initiative sponsors should be told not to disrupt state government in order to prove a point. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral and Comment. Notability is not temporary. Even if a proposal such as this does not proceed, if it received substantial news coverage then it is notable. Dbromage [Talk] 06:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dbromage makes a good point that notability is not temporary. When I-957 was filed, it received worldwide attention; I think that merits inclusion and would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion. TechBear 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 07:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and recast (and pruned down) as a historical article relating to the gay marriage controversy. Notability is not temporary per Dbromage. This was done in response to the right wing claim that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation. Point made. Also, for Elkman, Government is not Wikipedia. (Been wanting to say that). Democratic governments exist in order to, among other things, pay attention to points made by concerned citizens (Bill of Rights). Note that the AfD nomination has been withdrawn which should result in a speedy close. — Becksguy 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update! I always wondered where to go for the "Notability is not temporary" issue, thanks, quite pleased to know it. Article does need updating and pruning. ZueJay (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Gospel Tabernacles[edit]

United Gospel Tabernacles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church denomination, comprised of just a handful of churches. No sources at all, history cannot be verified. Realkyhick 07:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless references are found. Shalom Hello 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn group. Carlossuarez46 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I generally find greater notability for a denomination (a collection of congregations) than for individual congregations, but the article as is has no references to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:N and a search of ProQuest, Google News, Googel Scholar, and Google Books did not turn up references. Google news archives turned up 11 articles which mentioned the denomination in the 1930's and 1940's [44] with one mention from the 1970's about a tract of land being sold. Of course nothing much can be seen without subscription payments, so it is hard to judge where the articles give substantial coverage or passing coverage. Edison 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as we do with all denominations. It is a denomination that ordained ministers in the 1930s, one of whom was notable in launching the Four-Square Pentacostals in the Philippines (see RTF file of a book, search on denominational name). It is ordaining ministers today personal website. Edison's search is enough to demonstrate, even without reading the articles, that a serious search in dead tree sources could produce a decent article. Until someone takes the time, a stub is better than nothing. The current version of the article probably could use editing, but deletion is not the right solution. GRBerry 20:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately this organization has kept very low key in the past seventy years since its inception, quietly working behind the scenes. Thus my reason for creating the article. It is very hard to find online information about this organization, because the organization itself does not yet have the financial capabilities to keep or maintain a website about itself. All things pertaining to this organization come straight from newspaper clippings and the like, that the organization keeps in memory of it's past and heritage. You will be unlikely to find anymore sources online, unless you know exactly what you are looking for. Many of the ministers under this fellowship maintain their own websites at personal costs. But a full website pertaining to the actual organization has yet to be completed. (Though this is in the works by headquarters). This denomination is quite small in the United States, but that does not make it insignificant. A pastor ordained by UGT in Nigeria by the name of Ovy Chukwuma pastors over 2 million youth, not to mention three other churches. The organization is largely based on foreign missions. It is known throughout the world, but in America, it is few in number. Eventually this article will be the complete history and current standing of the organization. But for now, as I have stated, it is still under construction. Comments have been made regarding the insignificance of this organization due to the current information placed on the page. But it is a work in progress. Not everything is listed, for I do not yet have access to everything. It is gradually being given to me piece by piece. At least wait until the article is finished before anyone makes any decisions about deleting it. Although I believe to delete it, would deprive people of a part of history that they may not yet be privy to. Mxit 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Mxit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic view[edit]

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

I had originally replaced the page with a redirect to holism, but the creator reverted it. I figured I'd take this here: reads like an essay, contains original research, no references, and is superfluous in light of the holism article. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Re-creation as a redirect to Frank Herbert wouldn't be amiss. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technopeasantry[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable term outside its use in Dune. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete Disagree about being non-notable. Also, this term did not actually appear in Dune. It was a term used by Frank Herbert to describe his views on one of the major themes running throughout much of his work, the use/abuse/misuse of technology. Mkc3 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC) mkc3[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 07:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article is a WP:POV fork from the article Dune (novel). --Gavin Collins 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per EyeSerene. Or else take it to Wiktionary. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question - what type of sources are needed for this to be a Wikipedia article? I find three different meanings for 'technopeasant': the original Herbert usage (which is cited); the 'pixel-stained technopeasant wretch' usage (which is described on at least one Ansible page); and as a synonym of 'technophobe' (as described in The Urban Dictionary and this conference paper). So at the least I'd say transwiki to Wiktionary; but I think there could be the makings of a reasonable Wikipedia article too, preferably renamed as 'Technopeasant'. --Zeborah 09:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as term has recently accquired a new meaning. A good article could possibly be made out of this Lurker (said · done) 10:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you have a problem with lack of references then you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article states that the (new) misuse of the term has "received far more coverage than the original term." That is a claim that requires verification, and the examples given in the article (an offhand use by an author in an interview) don't qualify as significant third-party coverage. The burden for verifibility and notability lies with the author/maintainer, and this term is not a significant internal aspect of any noted work. ◄Zahakiel► 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its easy to delete, harder to put in the effort to edit, source and improve. That the term has a history, is used and has found recent new applications means that it is notable. That none of those in favour is willing to put in the effort to improve the article, is no reason to delete.KTo288 12:29, 5 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. No assertion or demonstration that this topic is notable within science fiction or political science, no sources whatsoever put forward in over two years, despite a previous AfD nomination in which this matter was discussed at some length. The article, at present, is a dictionary definition with a list of vaguely associated examples. Deletion does not prevent re-creation of an article with focus and sources. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President of Earth[edit]

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

Previous AFD in 2005 claimed notability in the sci-fi world and called for improvement, but still remains as unsourced. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no sources, no notability. Realkyhick 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It needs better sources, but I would imagine "President of Earth" to be a topic covered by more than one published literary critic. This article should work as a fun cultural supplement to world government, world domination, American empire and Pax Americana. Ichormosquito 08:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is a good example of WP:OR. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 08:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you have a problem with lack of references then you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a great example of WP:OR synthesis. There is no source discussing some common system of governent or some electoral process or powers of the office which is common to all the science fiction works listed which employ the term. Edison 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article on a common fictional character type. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surprising to think that sources may not be available. At least cursory mention of the topic has been made by the New York Times in [45], and surely other coverage of similar characters exist (check this out for starters: [46]). Does anyone have print sources about science fiction that could be used to flesh this article out? MrZaiustalk 19:12, 4 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. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seme (manga)[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of a position in (mostly homosexual) anime and manga relationships. Like it's counterpart uke, there isn't any reliable sources that discuss the usage of this term. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poxy Resin[edit]

Non notable band that only released a single EP: fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to TWoP.-Andrew c [talk] 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent hiatus[edit]

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

Non-notable Neologism from website Television Without Pity. The term appears to be in use, but I could not find third party sources documenting it. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable outside TWoP. Realkyhick 07:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to TWoP. Wl219 09:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to TWOP. It is a dictionary definition, anyway, and does not seem like a proper subject for an encyclopedia article. As a neologism, per ProQuest, it was used outside TWOP to refer to TV shows in "Science Fiction's Final Frontier; Perhaps," by Justine Elias. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 2, 2000. p. 13.4, in "Giving sitcoms a hand Glut of shows, dearth of talent have undercut half-hour humor;" [FINAL Edition], by Robert Bianco. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Feb 3, 2000. p. 01.D, in "Fox building on baseball, 'Idol' again: AS WB, UPN BECOME ONE, SOME GOOD, BAD SURPRISES," by Charlie McCollum. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, San Jose Mercury News. Washington: May 19, 2006. pg. 1, and in the Chicago Tribune "Long breaks send viewers on permanent hiatus," by Mark McGuire. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: May 20, 2007. pg. 1 . It was used to refer to cars "Chicago Tribune New Cars Column," by Jim Mateja. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Feb 1, 2004. pg. 1. to musical groups "SPARTA: Porcelain," by Christa L Titus. Billboard. New York: Jul 31, 2004. Vol. 116, Iss. 31; pg. 38, 1 pgs, in "CHANGES." by Anonymous. Rolling Stone. New York: Jun 2, 2005. p. 12 (1 page), and to baseball in "The Daily Fix: Barry Bonds' Traveling Circus Heads for Maddux, San Diego;" Online edition, by Carl Bialik and Jason Fry. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 3, 2007. Not so clear at all that Television Without Pity invented the term, because even in the 1960's U.S. TV shows referred to the break when they weren't filming (and when they might get cancelled) as the "hiatus." The TWOP article is uninformative as to when that site was launched, but the Wayback internet archive only shows it back to Feb 1, 2002 [47], so the term likely was in wide use pre-TWOP. Edison 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to TWOP. Italiavivi 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Andrew c [talk] 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional companies in video games[edit]

List of fictional companies in video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, trivial list of companies (when appeared only 1 time). This was originally a section in another article. RobJ1981 06:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; a bad list. Shalom Hello 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listcruft. TheInfinityZero 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and maybe merge) per (and to) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional companies (2nd nomination). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the entries on this list are from GTA; perhaps they should go to some list associated with that game, rather than a general fake video game companies list, virtually none of which meet the notability bar. Philip (Respond?) 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, weak keep -- extremely limited subject, unlike the other lists of fictional companies by genre, I would not suggest merging this. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Potentially infinite list. There are probably over 100 that could be added to this just from the GTA series alone, if you added every one from every video game ever made, I'm sure it would be well in to the hundreds of thousands. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, there is no reason for anyone to ever actually look this subject up. This just isn't an encyclopedic topic. Also, I see no reason that a list of fictional companies in video games would be any different from a list of fictional anything else in video games. Keeping this list could set precedent for keeping any number of lists of fictional things in video games, as there is nothing particularly defining about fictional companies (or anything defining about the fact that they appear in video games, for that matter). Why not fictional people? Why not fictional books? Why not fictional weapons? Keeping this list opens the door for those and anything else you can create a fictional list about, and frankly none of those are encylopedic or practical to create lists of. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 3 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. This isn't an encyclopedia article, nor are the items on it, with a few notable exceptions, candidates for inclusion on their own merits. Absent secondary sources discussing this phenomenon, a list of unecyclopedic items is, well, unecyclopedic. Editors arguing keep have not engaged this question. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional companies in television[edit]

List of fictional companies in television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, trivial list of companies (when appeared only 1 time). This was originally a section in another article. RobJ1981 06:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article, nor are the items on it, with a few notable exceptions, candidates for inclusion on their own merits. Absent secondary sources discussing this phenomenon, a list of unecyclopedic items is, well, unecyclopedic. Editors arguing keep have not engaged this question. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional companies in cinema[edit]

List of fictional companies in cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, trivial list of companies (when appeared only 1 time). This was originally a section in another article. RobJ1981 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, a good way to deal with this (and that) problematic article is to recognize that Wikipedia is not a directory of every single time that a passing reference to a non-existent compay is made in every movie ever. A good way to deal with it is to get over the notion that these endless lists of trivia are in any way valuable or encyclopedic. Otto4711 13:57, 2 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 13:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish settlement[edit]

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

The last afd over five months ago finished with no consensus. In that period, no more than ten edits have been made to justify this article. Besides the point of the article being unclear and the title generic (what exactly is a Turkish settlement?), the content that is here can be found in Cyprus dispute, Cypriot refugee, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus and Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. I'd urge editors to view some of the comments made in the previous nomination to further understand the failures here A.Garnet 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator or redirect to Cyprus dispute. The information that cannot be found in a better form in other articles is unsourced and unverifiable. That Turkey has occupied parts of the island, and that citizens of Turkey have been welcomed as immigrant citizens of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is beyond dispute, and can be found elsewhere. But have new settlements been formed? The {{Fact}} tag on the key phrase in the lead, "new Turkish settlements have been formed in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", has been there since April 2007. In all this time no evidence has surfaced that the main premise of the article is even true.  --Lambiam 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, at the least, it should be renamed to the particulars of the situation. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lambiam DenizTC 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think Mr. Manticore said it well. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again and again and again and again. Really. Why is this relisted? By the way, it was listed on Deletion sorting/Greece. DenizTC 07:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, but there are strong policy arguments to rename article. Cool Hand Luke 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video games notable for negative reception[edit]

Video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete article that is too broad for words. Any inclusion criteria will be subjective, open to opinion. Every game gets a negative reception from somebody. Shoester 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Alternative suggestion: Rename. Return to the name under which it survived four previous AfD discussions: List of video games considered the worst ever. Shoester 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per above, such a list would be impossible to upkeep. faithless (speak) 06:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I admit I didn't really give the article much of a chance. The word "notable" is key here. I'm still not crazy about the article, but don't see any especially good reason to delete. faithless (speak) 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad, and too much opinion/POV. RobJ1981 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this article has survived deletion four times. No, that doesn't make the article an automatic keep, but the nom has a responsibility to mention those things. I would like to address the claim that "every game gets a negative reception from somebody." That may be true, but only a select few games are notable for negative reception, like the Atari 2600 ET game. In that case, I'm sure someone could find reliable sources that actually document the fact that there was widespread disappointment with that game, and not just one or two negative reviews from video game critics. Zagalejo 07:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has survived, but we should point out that it had a different name that was easier to pin down during all four previous nominations. "Considered the worst ever" has problem*s but not nearly as many as "notable for negative reception". "Worst ever" is far more specific than "negative reception". As with the list of films considered the worst ever, we just have to provide good sources (specific sources agreed upon in the article) which rank a game among the worst ever or outright call it the worst. "Negative reception" is nebulous. Wryspy 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The similarly named Films notable for negative reception survived an AfD on the condition that it revert back to the name Films considered the worst ever.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Films_notable_for_negative_reception] Wryspy 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 'Video games notable for negative reception' is a terrible title for an article, it sounds like some sort of hideous PC newspeak. This page should (a) go back to previous title, 'List of video games considered worst ever', and (b) use the same criteria as the similar films considered the worst ever (citations, collosal financial failure, et al). PolarisSLBM 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, POV content could be fixed. Cocoma 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per PolarisSLBM - who moved the article under this awkward title anyway? -- Andrew (My talk) 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename While "worst" suggest that it must be very terrible title, "notable for negative reception" is too board. L-Zwei 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because as long as they can be referenced and the article remains coherently organized, then the article will be able to assert notability and not become unwieldly. Perhaps renaming would be a good idea as well as suggested above? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing's allowed on the list if it's not referenced and its inclusion not agreed upon on the talk page anyway, and if there's any POV in the article, I haven't seen it. I'm also not sure about moving to "worst ever". How many, since E.T., have been described in these terms (and can be referenced as such)? "Notable for negative reception" may be broad, but the list doesn't suffer from having merely average games included, and "worst ever" seems far too narrow. Miremare 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep & Rename (Note: This is the third comment I'm making on this AfD) I say "Weak" because I'm still not crazy about these articles, be they about video games, movies, whatever. But it seems that I'm outnumbered on this point. As for the article, it is well written and (more importantly) well sourced. So while I don't especially agree that the topic is encyclopedic, it passes all other criteria. "Rename" because "negative reception" is incredibly broad; what exactly makes a game notable for a negative reaction? One bad review? Two? How bad does the review have to be, and who has to make it for it to be notable? "Worst ever" is a better name simply because it's far more specific, and has a specific criterion for inclusion. faithless (speak) 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting article, and appropriate.Snowfire51 06:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. These games are famous for being bad. Though I'd recommend a name change. Something like "Games famous for bad reception" or "Games famous for being bad" or something. Or what it used to be, "considered the worst ever." Toastypk 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Let this one survive five times. Since "Death Race 2000" in 1974, there have been video games that outraged the public, and there have been notable failures along the way. This is an excellent article about the public reaction to the product rather than the product itself. Whether you like 'em or hate 'em, videogames -- which generally require no translation --- are in a unique position of being part of culture worldwide, and an important part of cultural history. 65.207.127.12 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename back to the old name or think of a better name for similar articles. It seems the nominator's big beef is that the title doesn't adequately describe the scope and method of the list; in this case, we really need to either a) come up with a title that does describe the scope and method of these articles, or b) stop complaining, explain the scope and method in the article in the lead, and worry only about external consistency with other similar articles. However, neither solution needs deletion, and I think we've already established in previous AfDs that we can build the article the way we do: Take a bad video game and point to a number of bad reviews that explain the badness. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename This is certainly a legitimate article with a strong concept and rather specific inclusion criteria, and the great majority of the article is sourced to show that these games are considered among the worst ever released. -- Kicking222 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No further comments to add. -Gohst 08:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename The article itself is fine, but title needs to be changed. Pretty much, we're throwing in Daikatana because it was overhyped. What about Fable? It was overhyped, yet we have no article for that. Hell, there are millions of games we can throw on here simply because of hype or what sites say. Rename, but still keep. Aramjm 01:40, 4 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1990s fads and trends[edit]

1990s fads and trends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of things that simply happened in that decade with no objective criteria for inclusion or secondary sources establishing each entry as a fad. Procedural nomination in line with other "fads and trends" articles. Dbromage [Talk] 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very trivial and seems very point of view to me. RobJ1981 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RobJ198. Thin Arthur 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way could this be a neutral, accurate well balanced article; not on this topic.--SefringleTalk 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2000s fads and trends[edit]

2000s fads and trends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of things that simply happened in that decade with no objective criteria for inclusion or secondary sources establishing each entry as a fad. Procedural nomination in line with other "fads and trends" articles. Dbromage [Talk] 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very trivial and seems very point of view to me. RobJ1981 06:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too subjective and trivial. Tomj 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RobJ198. Thin Arthur 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way could this be a neutral, accurate well balanced article; not on this topic.--SefringleTalk 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Sefringle. Cheers,JetLover 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, but a rewritten and reliably-sourced article might someday meet the demands of WP:LIST and other policies. Remember to follow reliable sources to prove the topic's notability. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1990s fads and trends in Japan[edit]

1990s fads and trends in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly unpopulated list of things that happened in that decade, some of which are not intrinsic to Japan anyway. Procedural nomination in line with other "fads and trends" articles. Dbromage [Talk] 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A non-article. Delete. (And to judge by the north American precedent, intended as a mere list of unsourced items.) I'm intrigued by the very Japanese separation of "Japan" from "Asia", though. -- Hoary 14:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hoary. Last time I checked Japan was part of Asia. Thin Arthur 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lists 5 things and uses other Wikipedia articles for sources, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Pixelface 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Looks like an incomplete article to me. If you're planning to write an article like this, the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:1990年代 is a "must read". You need to do a lot more planning and research, then go find your sources.--Endroit 03:21, 1 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1980s fads and trends in North America[edit]

1980s fads and trends in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of things that simply happened in that decade with no objective criteria for inclusion or secondary sources establishing each entry as a fad. Dbromage [Talk] 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fads and trends are subjects of significant interest, and are often the subject of written works, so the sources necessary for the article probably exist in some capacity. Calgary 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think this sort of article certainly qualifies as interesting and not indiscriminate, but it could do with some sources and cleanup (in particular, branded products seem to be randomly mentioned, presumably put it because an editor is a fan of those products - Macintosh is mentioned as 1984-present as if it was the only personal computer that existed, it might be better to replace these with general terms such as "personal computer"). Mdwh 10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article could use some cleanup, but has the potential to be terrific. I disagree with the above commentor also in that I think brand names are appropriate when mentioned. "personal computers" are not a fad or trend--we all know they're here to stay--but the Macintosh absolutely was a trend in the time period between Commodore 64s and Windows PCs. Keepscases 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not so much a problem with mentioning the Mac, but that it's the only computer mentioned - I guess if platforms like the C64 and PC were mentioned too, this would be another way of fixing it. Depends how much detail we want I guess (see also Timeline of computing 1980-1989, for a lot more detail).
Also note that only fads are things which fall in popularity, trends on the other hand includes things which stay (and indeed, the Mac, along with many others, are listed as being "-present"; it doesn't say that the trend ended when Windows PCs became popular). Mdwh 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV as to what constitutes a "fad". How can something listed as "1980s-present" be a fad? Thin Arthur 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Presumably that would be a trend. It's only fads which wane in popularity, but this article is fads and trends, hence avoiding the POV issue you claim. Mdwh 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No way could this be an encyclopediac topic.--SefringleTalk 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there may be issues with this topic - but you are saying that an article discussing national trends over the decade is inherently unencyclopedic? On the contrary, I'd say this is one of the most important issues I would expect an encyclopedia should cover, it's just a shame we don't currently do it very well. Mdwh 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that such articles could be worthy inclusions on wikipedia. The main issues are verifability, criteria for inclusion (a fundamental starting point for any article) and content, coupled with recentism (how far back should we go?) and schematic bias (are we likely to see similar articles for other continents? If this article survives would 1980s fads and trends in South America or similar be possible, bearing in mind a lack of English information?) BeL1EveR 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial subject matter, virtually no prose, and consistent with previous AfDs on 1990s and 2000s fads. BeL1EveR 10:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Open-ended list without reliably-sourced and objective list of criteria for inclusion. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 4 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1990s fads and trends in North America[edit]

1990s fads and trends in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of things that simply happened in that decade with no objective criteria for inclusion or secondary sources establishing each entry as a fad. Dbromage [Talk] 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Fads and trends" is far too broad and undefinied a definition to make a useful criterion for list inclusion. A superior set of articles based on narrower criteria can be found at 1990s in fashion, categorized under List of years in music, highlights listed at 1990s and so on. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV list with undetermined criteria -FlubecaTalk 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get where the beginning dates are coming from, but how about the ending of the fad? This could be an interesting topic, but this is 100% original research. 65.207.127.12 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Too POV. Thin Arthur 05:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way could this be a neutral, accurate well balanced article; not on this topic.--SefringleTalk 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2000s fads and trends in North America[edit]

2000s fads and trends in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of things that simply happened in that decade with no objective criteria for inclusion or secondary sources establishing each entry as a fad. Dbromage [Talk] 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not For Tourists[edit]

Not For Tourists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page reads like an advert. Orphaned for 9 months, and lacking information on the subjects importance for 8 months. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 05:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as orhpan and lack of sources. Possibly speedy as spam but borderline notability is asserted. Dbromage [Talk] 05:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen these books in every library and bookstore. Google News provides a good number of articles: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. And I don't think it's much of an advert. It seems fairly neutral and objective. The article creator has dipped into a wide variety of topics, so it's not the work of a SPA. Zagalejo 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo. Widely used guide. Wl219 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Noted by reliable sources, not an advert in tone. Realkyhick 07:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I dug up several newspaper reviews and have added these as citations to the article. --Zeborah 08:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a nicely rounded article, that it is written for locals who have taken their surroundings for granted seems like a notable enough concept ans it reads no more like an advert than the article for Lonely Planet or The Rough Guide, the fact that it is orphaned can be fixed with some work.KTo288 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, rename and clean up. ELIMINATORJR 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehenge in popular culture[edit]

Stonehenge in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced trivial list clutter. Even if sourcing is done: the article is still a trivial list that isn't helpful. Yet another "moved from the main article" list. Condense and move relevant things in the article: don't just move a cluttered list to a new article. RobJ1981 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but some material may be a relevant to a more encyclopedic Cultural depictions of Stonehenge. Dbromage [Talk] 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete Merge the few worthwhile entries (with references for each) and delete the rest. As long as the list exists, it will attract rubbish. MarkBul 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take the information, put it where necessary and Delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mostly listcruft and unsourced trivia.--JForget 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle as suggested by Dbromage. Retitling does not require afd. The use of major cultural monuments in major cultural works--or in what passes in this period of time as major cultural works--is notable. retitled, an article like this IS the relevant place. Some of the material is probably not worth keeping, but nce again, that;s an editing question. DGG (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there reliable sources that confirm that a list of things with the presence of Stonehenge, or things that look like Stonehenge, or things that aren't Stonehenge but people refer to as "Stonehenge," or a passing mention of Stonehenge, in miscellaneous places is notable? Otto4711 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Otto, why mention the others, they will surely be nominated in their turn. :) anyway, we do have to consider each article in its own light. it is just as wrong to say all articlea [X]IPC are justifiable regardless, as to say that none of them are. DGG (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand me. Bit of a leap to call them crap. As you say they would have to go through a nomination process just as this is doing. Calling this, and those articles crap is therefore a point of view and is preempting that judgement. Alternatively let me put it this way. Perhaps those articles exist because they are a GOOD thing. Therefore the concept of creating these articles maybe has Merit. Maybe it does not. The reason it was initially spun out of the article is because the desperate temptation is for a passerby to add the fact that on a computergame they played there was something that looked like Stonehenge, and to add this to the Stonehenge article in a trivia section. That article deals with the monument itself, and NOT modern imitations (which has its own list article) nor references in painting/fiction/music etc. Instead it goes here where the notable can be sifted from the non notable. I agree that this has so far not happened. I would like to see a lot of the computer games sifted out, and replaced by the entries which make definite, explicit and notable references to Stonehenge. The Royal Navy ships, Beatles concert and the Spinal Tap spring to mind. Incidentally there are also paintings by Constable and Turner that could just as easily be added. If this is your reason for wanting it deleted, it is a matter of content dispute not a subject for afd. On the other hand the article could easily be improved to include more narrative, less trivia and a more detailed (and referenced) look at the iconic nature of Stonehenge and WHY and HOW this is used and exploited. Give this article a stay of execution and I for one will look seriously at doing this. Benea 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors add junk trivia to the Stonehenge article (or any other article), then it should be removed from that article and not spun off into its own article. This "we need a trivia dump" mentaility is what's led to this mess in the first place. Every time a trivia or "in popular culture" section gets large enough, an editor recognizes the fact that the information doesn't belong in the main article but refuses to take the next step of actually getting rid of it. Instead it gets spun out into a separate article filled with junk that becomes someone else's problem to deal with. There is no merit in creating trivia dumps of every appearance of a building or monument or car or weapon or whatever. As far as a "stay of execution" goes, there's nothing preventing you from writing such a sourced article (if sources exist that are about the topic of "Stonehenge in popular culture"). You can request, should this article be deleted, that the content be transferred to your user space. Otto4711 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have edited and expanded the page, removed trivia and sourced it (there are really quite a few references for Stonehenge in Popular Culture). Does this article deserve deletion? Benea 21:13, 2 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 Merge. I'll move it all back, but it should probably be trimmed... — Scientizzle 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Joan in popular culture[edit]

Pope Joan in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A cluttered trivial list that isn't very useful. This was moved from the main article. As I've stated in the past: condense and merge relevant and useful information: do not just split it off to an article of it's own if it's just a cluttered list of things. RobJ1981 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything useful with Pope Joan. Dbromage [Talk] 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything worthwhile in this one. Every mention in the media is not "in pop culture". MarkBul 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MarkBul beat me to it. I would say keep, but there doesn't seem to be anything worth keeping that isn't already mentioned in Pope Joan. faithless (speak) 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take the action suggested by Dbromage. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article as the article under discussion here is quite short and so would probably work best incorporated back into the main article. The information helps show Pope Joan's notability and so is worth keeping, but as part of the main article on her instead. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure trivia drivel. Dannycali 22:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back There isnt enough for two articles. DGG (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redarse[edit]

So... this is an unreferenced article about a development in the game 'headers and vollies'... it's also known as 'sorearse' (as in, red arse, sore arse).... I think we're looking at a WP:MADEUP and/or WP:HOAX. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven for reason: as per AFD. Non-admin closure. bwowen talk•contribs 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whipperman[edit]

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

No such breed. Probably someone's invented pet name. Google shows no hits. I've never heard of them. And it's just another among zillions of possible dog crossbreeds. Elf | Talk 04:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. The infobox itself says "Not recognized by any major kennel club". Dbromage [Talk] 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is NFT made up in the dog park one day. -- Kicking222 04:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature whipperman[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whipperman Elf | Talk 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. The infobox itself says "Not recognized by any major kennel club". Dbromage [Talk] 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above comments and the above AfD. FYI, "miniature whipperman" gets 5 G-hits, all WP and mirrors. -- Kicking222 04:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, fails WP:V requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Z Feng[edit]

Kai Z Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable fashion photographer as per WP:BIO or WP:CORP. Earlier edits of article made all sorts of unsourced claims that are not verifiable by any source in the subject's 89 unique Google hits. wikipediatrix 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Any chance if you would recheck your google? as I get something completely different with 567 hits although some need to be screen out, it is very different from your result. THX.Chineseartlover 07:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it first says 567 (or so). Now go to the last page of hits. The total's 89 or so (and a lot of them gay porn blogs, its seems). -- Hoary 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be pointed out that those are just the hits for his name in romanized form. But there are only eleven in Chinese. I don't claim to be able to read Chinese, but even what hits there are somehow don't look impressive. Delete. -- Hoary 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read Chinese and did a clean up on this page earlier. I have went into quite a few of the original refs and verified that they are either the written biographies for the photographer or magazine scans showing clearly the photographer's work and his credits. As a result I change the original writer's external links into reference.
      **The three comments on the article, one is an Netscape entry, which I believe is notable, the other is from China Vogue, also notable. The only less credible entry was from the Think in English, Count in Chinese website. While it is a blog, I believe it does capture the general views I read while doing the verification on the other website and have left it in the articles as is.

      I feel Google search is not the only criteria for Notability. The photographer's work is published in a wide selection of magazine including the reputable Vogue, Harpers, Hercules, Sunday Times, the Independent, Arena and Grazia, all boast the biggest circulation in their field. There are many photographers on Wiki who has less published work in their whole career and this guy has only been working for 1 year.

      Perhaps The number of hits on Google is a subjective measure because the result is subject to how the search is conducted. I noted wikipediatrix did a unique Google Serach with "Kai Z Feng which give 89 unique hit. However, if you then google on "kai z feng" you will get 580 unique hit. In addition, you will see the pages returned for the Capitalize search are less important sites on the photographers, while the un-capitalize search yield the more relevant results.In addition, the photographer is often credited as "kaizfeng" which when Google return another 696 hits. He is also known as "Kai Feng" which when google give 48,800, but this result is difficult to judge as "kai feng" is also the name of a major city in China.

      Also Hoary used the Japanese Google which can be misleading is not relevant as the photographer is Chinese, if you search for his name in google Hong Kong, you will get 403 hits for his name in the traditional Chinese form 馮志凱, if you then Google in Simplified Chinese you will get 253 pages in simplified Chinese Text. *It should be noted that the pages return from a google of kai z feng without the "" to specified unique search would return 472,000 hits. and the result on the first page are all about the photographer, showing that the google robot clearly recognise the combination of "kai z feng" as the photographer. Indeed this search would return the photographer's homepage, while the official name "Kai Z Feng" would not. Clearly some an area for further investigation with google.

      I am a relative newbie in editing although I have use wiki for a while. So if I have make any irrelevant points, please let me know if there are relevant policy documents on this subject so I can check it out. ThanksChineseartlover 05:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • one is an Netscape entry, which I believe is notable, the other is from China Vogue, also notable. You're welcome to readd both. But for the former, yes, "entry" seems the appropriate word; it looks like a mere blog entry. I deleted the China Vogue link because it was dead; but another reason would be that it wasn't actually to CV but instead was to Feng's own website. ¶ I feel Google search is not the only criteria for Notability. The photographer's work is published in a wide selection of magazine including the reputable Vogue, Harpers, Hercules, Sunday Times, the Independent, Arena and Grazia Yes, Google isn't the only criterion. If you have evidence for Feng's publication in those magazines, please present it. ¶ Also Hoary used the Japanese Google which can be misleading is not relevant as the photographer is Chinese, if you search for his name in google Hong Kong, you will get 403 hits for his name in the traditional Chinese form 馮志凱. Yes, that's what it says. But they all turn out to be just eleven of what Google thinks are discrete hits. Still, it's quality and not quantity that matters: if he has merely handful of reliable, impressive hits, that's enough. So, where are they? ¶ I am a newbie here, how would we verify source which are on paper form. Just present the publication details. (Imagine that you're doing a university assignment; it's the same idea.) Here's an example. Note that the odd pages here and there in magazines, even if their existence is verified, are unlikely to be taken as evidence for notability. Better is evidence of books, solo exhibitions, and critical attention. Of course, this man is young and it may be unrealistic to expect books, solo exhibitions and the like. Well, no reason to push an article for him: if his article is deleted at the end of this process, that's a verdict on the article, not on him; and a few years from now, after he's become genuinely famous, he can get a very different article. -- Hoary 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the link.I don't have the magazine, but I believe there are scan on his website. will get back to it when i have more time. do you know how long is this deletion process? I can understand this photographer is on a different levet to Tokihiro Satō, but it doesn't mean he is not notable. His list of collaborated brand and the list of celebrity seems to suggest he is notable. Also can you advise how to check for discrete hits on google? THxChineseartlover 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • AfD takes a week or so. The number of discrete hits: Google tells you a number in the hundreds, but then you look to see how many hits it actually bothers to list for you. -- Hoary 06:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC) edited 06:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked through the history of the page and it appears to fall under WP:CSD#G11. The sources are blogs, and previous edits have removed most of the page because they were unreliable sources. All other information is unsourced, which reduces the page to simple self-promotion. Delete. Ajonlime 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did verify the source. While some of them appear in a blog site, most of them are scan of the work published by the photographer in High Street publications. I am a newbie here, how would we verify source which are on paper form. I am cleaning up another page at the moment and it seems the subject have only ONE return on google but he is broadcaster and have received award 10 years ago after his death thus making him seemingly notable. But no internet linke source to verify these info. Chineseartlover 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revert with some cleanup The photographer is unique as he appears to be the only Chinese fashion photographer ever who has been commissioned by both Vogue and Harper's Bazaar, arguably the two most credible and influential magazine in the world for High Fashion. (see Fashion photography for detail of the war between the two magazine). I do think my edited version of the page might required further clean up, eg: the external links for the magazines are not necessary, but the links to his fan site as well as the discussion forum about his work could be retained. Also I think it is relevant to keep the list of his Collaborated Brands and the Featured Celebrities & Top Models he has worked with. These are clear indication of his notability.Chineseartlover 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Offline sources are certainly admissible if you cite publication name, year, issue, etc., but these must be actual newspaper articles about Feng, not just instances of his work being printed and a photo credit being given to him. Notability, to a first approximation, means being discussed in the news or in academia, not having your work published. The fact of his possibly being the only Chinese fashion photographer commissioned by both Vogue and Harper's Bazaar is mildly interesting, but can't really count as the basis of notability if reliable sources haven't actually noted said fact. Basically, if someone is not discussed by reliable sources]], then pretty much any observations you make about their body of work (besides purely statistical ones) will inevitably be original research. Went through the 62 Chinese GHits (not 11) and didn't see anything that would help. [54] cab 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe Google is screwy today. I clicked on the links given to us (the Chinese-interface ones) and got an ostensible 650 hits for the name in traditional script, boiling down to just 11; but apparently mere dozens of hits for the name in simplified script, a number that's hardly reduced and perhaps is indeed 62. -- Hoary 06:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have so far trace one short article on Feng but I did remember seeing something while verifying the page. here is the Vogue article. Also not sure how google work. seems to give different number with different settings. Will get back later Chineseartlover 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
  • I am surprise to find this page being up for deletion again. I will scan the interviews that different magazines have done for him and upload it here. I have followed his progress since I discovered his work at the start of this year and started this page a few months a ago. Since then, he has been gathering a lot more following. Hope the committee will agree after I have upload the new articles. Please DO NOT DELETE Thanks You. Boom170 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WORK IN PROGRESS I have went through some of the original text and trace some of the source of reference and made the revert as appropiate. I am in the process of checking other text and links for reference and citatin and will revert or deleted them s appropiate, please do not delete the comments from the content for the time being until the process is completed. Thanks. I have therefore removed the Cleanup tag for the time being.
    As I am not an expert in Fashion Photography, I have inserted a tag request for EXPERT input on the subject and may be comment on the notability of the photographer further. Thanks. Chineseartlover 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not verifiable sources to establish the notability of this photographer according to wikipedia requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. A paragraph about him in Vogue is not sufficient, nor is his name as a credit to a photograph. Tyrenius 03:25, 5 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. — TKD::Talk 06:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine MacDonald[edit]

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

Non-notable failed candidate for Ontario's provincial legislative body. No sources whatsoever. Community activism is claimed, but no sources cited to show it. Realkyhick 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Politician who has never held office fails WP:N. Being the parent of a notable person does not make one notable. faithless (speak) 06:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Faithless said. Shalom Hello 11:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Keeps Jammin[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable individual; only 38 Google hits for the name, and 1 for "The Winter of Art" (and it's not relevant). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 03:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - the only reason it's not marked as such is because the original author keeps removing the tag. Oli Filth 11:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - should have been speedy deleted but none the less should be deleted whether through speedy deletion or AFD. Xtreme racer 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. V. Ravi[edit]

I can't find anything to prove this guy really exists. The only things that turn up in a Google search are spam-mirrors of this article and a career scientist named A.V. Ravi Kumar who's clearly not the same person as this alleged professional bodybuilding champion turned actor. wikipediatrix 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is Mr India notable? All I can find is the information about the movie Corpx 04:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything to suggest that this person even exists, much less is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. faithless (speak) 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non-notable. --Djsasso 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pusey[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article has no sources other than a MySpace page and the subject's own website, and most of the Google hits are MySpace pages themselves. This is a non-notable, session musician who fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. Darbydale's All Rise Pouch Cove[edit]

Ch. Darbydale's All Rise Pouch Cove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable. Individual winners of dog shows, even if they're prestigious dog shows, have never been considered noteworthy enough for their own pages. Might not even be reasonable to list the hundred or so winners so far on the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show page--too many to be maintain reasonably accurately and the Kennel Club's westminster site & other sources list them already. Unless the dog is famous in his own right (e.g., Rin Tin Tin, Fala (dog) Roosevelt), wikipedia's not the place for these articles. Elf | Talk 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of notability for this dog. I do not think animals who win fashion shows/contests are automatically notable Corpx 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it! per corpx. !paradigm! 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. No assertion of notability and deleted once with the correct capitalization. Pascal.Tesson 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew crawford[edit]

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

Non-notable webforum owner. There are no claims of notability, this article has been deleted once already at Andrew Crawford, my speedy deletion tag was removed by User:DGG, so therefore we have to jump through hoops here. Corvus cornix 02:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for no evidence of notability, specifically for failing WP:BLP. —Travistalk 02:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lack of high quality references to this article is a major concern here. Moreover, there is no evidence of notability in this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of secondary sources. Dbromage [Talk] 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possible speedy delete) it has already been recreated once before. Non-notable. Sources? --PrestonH 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources assert or support notability. --Haemo 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I threw a speedy tag on there. Any time you see junk like this just take it through the speedy deletion process. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 14:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that DGG removed a speedy tag yesterday ([55]) with the comment, "asserts importance. May or may not be, but asserts it, so not a speedy." That's why we have to go through this AfD. On the bright side, once this AfD passes, the article will be readily speediable. —Travistalk 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 99% of all vanity articles assert notability. If we used this as a guideline then the speedy deletion process wouldn't exist in the first place. No biggie as this trash will likely get annihilated here in short order. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I suppose you're right about vanity articles. Thanks —Travistalk 17:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already deleted before and has no real sources. Screenshots should not count. Xtreme racer 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway monitors[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of "current" but non-notable products. Mikeblas 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both due to lack of reliable third-party sources to establish notability. No prejudice against re-creation if and when those sources become available. — TKD::Talk 06:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11th Sepultura Album[edit]

11th Sepultura Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
13th Sepultura Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know anything about Sepultura, but I do know the band's own article contradicts everything this wispy nothing of an article speculates. Let it come back when someone knows what they're talking about - especially if they know what to call it. wikipediatrix 01:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOT#CBALL specifies that expected events are only suitable if well documented. --Moonriddengirl 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeeeez. Consider 13th Sepultura Album bundled in with this deletion, then. wikipediatrix 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if album is true, I do not see notability today to keep this article. Carlosguitar 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The info that's there is stated on the band's official website. So far, this is all the info we have.Dark Executioner 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]
  • Keep Just keep it. More info is avalible all the time on their websites and interviews. 72.145.197.250 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Housing options[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Too local in scope to pass WP:ORG. The user who created the page is Housingoptions (talk · contribs), which also creates COI issues. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1970s fads and trends in North America[edit]

1970s fads and trends in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

....*Cringe*..... Not only is this article written like a transcript of text from some cheesy infomercial or VH-1 special, the fundamental premise is hopelessly vague and broad. An utterly indiscriminate collection of information if ever there was one. wikipediatrix 01:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Original research, full of POV, and not even accurate - how the hell is Jimmy Hoffa a 1970s fad or trend? I hate editors who play games with hidden links - Robert Duvall decided to go surfing in Vietnam. Crazysuit 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What a train wreck! Completely POV OR and written like a Casey Kasem top 40 countdown. —Travistalk 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wow, man, delete! This thing is like a bad acid trip. Fails WP:OR, among many other things. Realkyhick 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above. --Metropolitan90 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Word, Realkyhick~ Dbromage [Talk] 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert, and then possibly renominate all Wooooooah people. If you notice the right side of the article, this topic exists for the last four decades. The other three articles (fads of the 80s, 90s, and 00s) are all simple lists. This article, as well, used to be a simple list until a single editor took it over [57]. Now, I don't know if I'm such a big fan of these kinds of arbitrary, uncited lists in any context. Thus, I say we close the nomination of this terrible, terrible, terrible article, revert it to when it was a mere list and not vomit-inducing, and then- if anyone feels they should be- nominate the entire lot of articles for deletion (or just let 'em all live in their listiness). -- Kicking222 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Even the previous version is unsourced, possibly OR and obviously listcruft. How are ESPN and Garfield defined as a fad? Ditto the other decades (watch this space....) Dbromage [Talk] 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those need to be deleted too, in my opinion Corpx 05:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I disagree that there is anything wrong with the premise, as information on general fads or trends of a decade is encyclopedic. As a much better example of this, see 1970s. Since we have this much better article on the decade, and that this article is rather poor, I vote delete, but note that my vote should not be taken as support for deletion of any future article on this topic. Mdwh 10:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a proper list article, the premise needs to be either fads or trends, not both. What kind of trends? Economic trends? Fashion trends? political trends? It's just too vague, too broad, too big. Listing 70s fads alone is already too much - I could sit here and off the top of my head list enough 70s fads to make the article too long for Wikipedia standards. Lastly, the article says "North America". Think about it. Mexico had a completely separate and different culture from the USA in the 70s, and this USA-centric material has no connection to it whatsoever. Do we really intend this article to cover "trends" in Newfoundland, Greenland and Bermuda? (Yes, they're part of North America.) wikipediatrix 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it should be a list article; as you say, that would lead to problems like a neverending list of fads. I don't see a problem with a non-list article - as I say, see 1970s. This article summarises major fads, trends (which are not always easy to distinguish between, and I'm not sure why they need to be separate?) and more in a single article. Are there problems with that article too? The problem with the article name is not a reason for deletion, that can be fixed by moving it to something like 1970s fads and trends in the United States (at one point it was simply 1970s fads and trends - presumably the editor moved it having similar concerns to you, but didn't make it specific enough). Mdwh 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like, back in the 1970s, before there was the Internet, people still liked to copy someone else's stuff word for word and pretend like they had wrote it themselves, but they figured it was unlikely they'd get caught, 'cos there was no way to check it out, but they had to work harder at doing it 'cos there was no "cut and paste" like there is now, except if you did cut something out and pasted it onto a piece of paper with airplane glue, you could get real high and... and.... FAR OUT!!!!65.207.127.12 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete man! Thin Arthur 05:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Although the keep recommendations are in the majority, some have weaker (or nonexistent) rationales. The argument that this is original research is compelling, but it has been argued that this topic is indeed verifiable and notable, and possibility of finding sources seems at least plausible. However, the article is clearly unacceptable in its current state, and, if not improved, could be renominated for deletion in a few months or so. — TKD::Talk 06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet killer[edit]

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

Total original research, from premise to execution. Takes a contrived term ("Planet killer") and then sets about thinking up all the times that a planet has ever been destroyed in the entire history of speculative fiction. wikipediatrix 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, prune, rewrite as List of fictional weapons of mass destruction or similar. Wl219 01:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced OR. Dbromage [Talk] 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. - Shudde talk 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without renaming and add sources - Planet Killer is the term i've heard the most for Deathstar-like-devices. I think it's reasonable to demand sources for the article, at the moment there are none but nno real effort has been made to push for them (an unreferenced tag was added today). As it goes with these things that's probably going to be easy for the specifics (individual planet killers) and an awful lot harder for the generalitys (showing planet killers in general to be a notable subject), but it shouldn't be impossible. Artw 03:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability for this term. One fan site, which does not appear to be a reliable source, is not enough to keep this article Corpx 04:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find a source establishing the widespread usage of the term is definately priority umber one for sourcing the article. Paradoxically that's a little tricky due to the widespread usage of the term, which swamps internet searches for it with noise. Artw 05:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll gladly change my vote if you can find these sources Corpx 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I completely understand that it won't be taken as read that they do exist until they are found. Artw 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance should be deemed by coverage in reliable sources Corpx 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar has a mere 6 results for the term, two of which (the Ender's Game and the Cold War Pop Culture ones) are science-fiction related. I haven't looked closely enough to see whether they're non-trivial enough for Wikipedia's purposes but they're a place to start. (Um, the first is open access, the second will depend on whether your library subscribes. It's getting late here but if no-one else follows these up in a couple of days I'll take another look.) --Zeborah 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why on Earth would you expect coverage in Google scholar, to the exclusion of all other available sources? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--::Type in "planet killer" (with speech marks) in normal Google and you'll get 25,600 results. Browsing through just the first few pages of results I'm seeing stuff on Star Trek, Babylon 5 and Star Wars, and I know for a fact that the phrase is used in the computer game Supreme Commander as well - characters say something along the lines of "The UEF are constructing a planet killer, they are calling it Black Sun." So the term planet killer does seem a well-known and widely used term for devices that destroy planets. The term "superweapon" is sometimes used, but that's more associated with powerful attacks in computer games like nuclear missiles or death rays from space, and so superweapon basically just means "weapon of mass destruction". But Planet Killer, on the other hand, means exactly what it says - it kills a whole planet. Since planet killers (both the concept and the actual name) appear in a number of different examples of science fiction, it seems notable enough to me. -- 14:22, 28 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.232.223 (talk)

Comment. Aren't most of these uses of "planet killer" from Babylon 5, where the term is per se used? The concept perhaps merits an article, but I wonder if "planet killer" isn't the most neutral name that could be chosen. RandomCritic 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Babylon 5 may use it and have the most nerdcruft regarding it online, but Star Trek got there first with "The Doomsday machine". The Googel search brings up enough evidence of it's generic use, but what really need to be found if the article is to be kept is a reference to that generic use. Recent experience in trying to find sources for this kind of thing has taught me that paper sources are likely to be more fruitfull that online ones, but you'll haver ot be a little patient as that's somewhat timeconsuming. Artw 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term itself is probably not the best, so maybe a new name, but the concept on how to destroy/exterminate a planet is useful information (escpecially when having an argument). Quite a number of notable articles link to it - Fosnez 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it would actually be very difficult to destroy a large sphere, it's a science fiction convention that ranks up there with faster than light travel and universal translation devices that make everyone speak English. 65.207.127.12 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand and source. A giant meteorite can be a planet killer and (a couple of bad movies notwithstanding) isn't necessarily sci-fi. Thin Arthur 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vivazol[edit]

No indication of notability. Alksub 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no notability, no context, no nothing but a minty fresh taste. Realkyhick 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NN. No matches found for: vivazol. Only its owner and Wikipedia know about it so far. No one else. - GarbageCollection - !Collect 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The silk demise[edit]

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

Band failing WP:MUSIC. The sources are not significant enough to establish notability. Alksub 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sign of Wikilife here. No evidence of notability. MarkBul 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Unimpressive or nonexistent releases. Shalom Hello 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBIM[edit]

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

Neologism. WP:NN, and "apparently was not common until after 2006, perhaps well into 2007." No WP:RS provided. Evb-wiki 00:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as obviously unencyclopedic material, with no assertion of widespread use or notability. --Deskana (apples) 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hateful couch[edit]

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

Neologism, no evidence of widespread use. Deprodded by anon. Alksub 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Some things that have been thought up during a pub crawl or flash of dementia have exploded into internet phenomena; however, this is not (yet) among them. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as made up while drunk. Dbromage [Talk] 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Urp!) Delete. They lost me at the word "fraternity." Realkyhick 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass any sort of notability criteria, especially for neologisms. Calgary 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it SNOWing? Y'know, I'd expect a drunk fratboy to possibly create an article about something he and his friends came up with... but not someone who was a fratboy a decade and a half ago. -- Kicking222 05:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nom has said it properly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Close per nom. (non-admin close) —Travistalk 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svensk[edit]

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

Title not used in English, so no redirect needed; as article, can never be expanded beyond stub status. Tkynerd 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please close; the article is currently a redirect, and has therefore been listed for RfD instead. Many apologies for the error. --Tkynerd 00:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to Wikibooks. — TKD::Talk 05:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in film and Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in literature[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is actually a quite well written essay.

As a Wikiedia article I consider it to be fatally flawed.

Firstly, it's marred by the section on criteria for inclusion Besides being full of self-references such as "This article was created in June 2006 and since then a number of guidelines for inclusion have evolved in the discussion pages", the crtieria described ignore verifiability.

Secondly, which is related to the above, it's full of original research. That's because it's an essay. Essay writers rightly feel free to create whole ad hoc categories for the purpose of organising the ideas presented, an so this essay creates categories such as "Robotic psychopathic characters and psychopathic artificial intelligence", "Extraterrestrial and god-like psychopathic characters", "Lesbian vampires" and the like, which are innovative but not verifiably psychopathic in any concrete sense.

It was previously listed for deletion in April, and kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. Since then it has been renamed.

I think this is a pretty good essay, and should be considered for transwiki to WikiBooks. --Tony Sidaway 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I think we should also consider what to do to the article that User:Mangled Nervous System, the principal editor, forked off from it in July: Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in literature. Accordingly I have added the deletion tag to that article, and suggest that we also transwiki it. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I concur. This is fascinating reading, and it is not a Wikipedia article. It doesn't belong in the main articlespace, but it'd be a pity to delete it outright. Transwiki. DS 00:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiBooks per DS. Article has been worked on quite hard, but it's still quite original research. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's hard to go against lesbian vampires, but it just doesn't fit. MarkBul 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki both to WikiBooks. This may be the best-written article I've ever voted to delete. The references are terrific. But it's almost totally original research and not an encyclopedia article. Find a good place for this — just not here. Realkyhick 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki. The introduction is sourced but the examples of each type are OR. Dbromage [Talk] 04:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per comments above. It is quite an essay, and I hate to see the work going into a wastebin. ~Iceshark7 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Transwiki if anyone'll have it. For all the same reasons it should have eben deleted the last time. Otto4711 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the introduction is admitted to be sourced. Given that the individual examples are mostly well known works where there will certainly be reviews discussing he chaacters, I think it meets the requirement of being sourceable.
  • Keep Well-written and informative.--Bedivere 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per above. 65.207.127.12 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/Delete Unfortunately, it's WP:USEFUL and Well-written, but it's complete and utter WP:OR SirFozzie 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and rename Good to keep, quite interesting, terrible article. Also a bit redundantly named. Fictional portrayals? ~Kylu (u|t) 00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course fictional - as opposed to documentaries or films based on true stories.--Bedivere 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki indeed. It seems like the most reasonable solution.--Jersey Devil 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki & Delete good reading, but bears no relation to a Wikipedia article WP:OR etc. ELIMINATORJR 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good well written and researched piece - highly relevant and appropriate - one of the best articles on this subject- good for students - keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.35.170 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This relatively well-written essay doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There is a famous quote by Wales: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." This essay was constructed by taking many characters in films and synthesizing them into the novel concept of a "fictional psychopath". This is a great topic for a term paper in film criticism, but not for Wikipedia. We routinely delete articles in the sciences that develop new theories in this manner. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 2 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 keep without prejudice against a merge if a consensus later forms to do so. However, I'm not seeing a consensus for it on the basis of this discussion. — TKD::Talk 05:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx[edit]

Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article full of OR which was recently removed by me from the magazine's article for the same reason. Will (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a synthesis, but it's not one that originated on Wikipedia. As such, it's not inherently OR. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a 3rd party source making the synthesis of the SI jinx to "US national soccer team (being) eliminated from the 1994 FIFA World Cup by Brazil". Almost all the entries on the list are of similar synthesis which is not attributed to anyone Corpx 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to do so, any entries that can't be sourced can be removed, it's the *subject* of the page that matters, not content like that. You do realize that a statement like that can simply be removed and the rest of the article will still be valid? FrozenPurpleCube 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If all such examples are removed, the article will be empty, save for the first line Corpx 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you presume you can't find any sources whatsoever for any of them. I wouldn't assume that at all, but would instead recommend diligently looking for sources that do mention them as a jinx. FrozenPurpleCube 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof to find references should be on the editors who want to re-add the material, when the synthesis is contested Corpx 06:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case, I see no reason to jump to removal, since it's not especially controversial material, and there are reasonable sources like: [58] In any case, contesting the content is different from contesting the topic. Can you deny that this topic has been the subject of significant coverage? FrozenPurpleCube 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, but I think it can be covered sufficiently with a one line mention in the main SI article, and without un-cited synthesis. Corpx 06:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all instances of un-cited synthesis from the article and looking at its current state, I'd say Merge back to SI. Corpx 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is something that has [59] well, been the subject of a segment on CNN among other things. [60] gets enough hits. I'm sorry, but this is clearly a subject which can be sourced. Therefore, it doesn't need to be OR. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove the SYNTH per everyone above. The article isn't great, but the subject is undeniably notable. -- Kicking222 05:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would like to see the article be more an explanation of the phenomenom and references to it in other media. Many of the examples are unverifiable, perhaps there are some instances of the affected athletes referring to the 'curse' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 05:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a great article, but definitely a notable topic. Maxamegalon2000 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well known phenomenon in popular culture. Could use some fixups though. --Djsasso 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Really doesn't need its own article. The only reference is very self-referencial, and it reads like an OR essay. I have heard the term used on TV and such, but it does not needs its own article. Dannycali 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The jinx is notable, and it deserves a better article than this. 65.207.127.12 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as unsourced original research with no evidence of notability. To answer Autopilot's question, we would need a secondary source that expressly identifies this particular setting as a cliché or recurring plot device to avoid original research, and we'd need non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. This discussion didn't produce any evidence that such sources exist. — TKD::Talk 05:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow volcano base[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and contains original research. I doubt this is actually a notable cliche, especially since I've never heard of it. --AAA! (AAAA) 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The setting of an evil villian's hollowed out volcano base occurs in many, many action movies, which is what makes it a cliche. The Evil Overlord List even references volcano bases several times. The current list of movies was generated by searching for 'hollow volcano' on wikipedia; there are likely many others. Autopilot 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cliche or not, does it have any sources that verifies it? --AAA! (AAAA) 01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one verify a cliche? Or cite sources for something like List of islands, which is similar in spirit to a list of hollow volcano bases in movies. --Autopilot 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also similar to the entry for Sexual tension as a Plot device, which lists movies that employ it without citing any sources or references. -- Autopilot 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced OR. No evidence that this is a cliche, let alone a notable one. Dbromage [Talk] 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, non-notable, neologism, unattributed and WP:MADEUP. Carlosguitar 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, traceable back to You Only Live Twice. Once is enough here. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wheres the notabilty and the verification?--PrestonH 03:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Shoester 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But I created the page, so I would say that... Autopilot 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Making just a vote is discouraged and may be ignored, since AfD is not a vote. Please back up your vote with reasons why this article should not be deleted. --Phirazo 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, no sources given to confirm that the subject is a cliche, seems to be orginal research. --Malcolmxl5 00:15, 1 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. CitiCat ♫ 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay R. Cohen[edit]

Jay R. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable TV producer. Google searches mostly turn up other people of the same name, primarily Jay Cohen. A Jay Cohen is listed on IMDB but with very few credits, and it is not clear if it is the same person.♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

care to explain your reasoning? one word responses don't help much. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 307 Google hits when in quotes, and what I believe, is that IMDB and the external link in the article are the only sources you could ever use to find about this person. Fails WP:N. ~Iceshark7 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep short article isnt = deletion --Zingostar 20:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a reason for keeping, especially if the nominator has not said that it's a short article. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. I nominated it because the guy is not notable. It doesn't matter if the article is short/long/whatever. The fact that it does not pass most wiki notability guidelines is why I submitted an AFD. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, note it should likely need to be relisted. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:58, 3 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. This article is irredeamably POV and nationalistic. Spartaz Humbug!

Anti-Romanian massacres in north Transylvania, 1940-1944[edit]

Anti-Romanian massacres in north Transylvania, 1940-1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsalvageable nationalist rant, written in an essay style, with countless factually incorrect claims and next to no references. Delete. KissL 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whatever info can be salvaged (and, prima facie, there's none) can go into already existing articles, such as Northern Transylvania, History of Transylvania, and Second Vienna Award, instead of filling in POV forks. There is not one wikipedia norm which is respected by this article: it is ungrammatical, misspelled, redundant, biased, jingoistic, convoluted, incoherent, unsubstantiated and ridiculous. Dahn 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is an accurate translation (by me) into English of the Romanian version of this same article. You can compare and see for yourself. I have seen many pages in wikipedia that differ in different languages, in both size and content, and are not accurate translations, as this one is. Besides translating, I added the background info section as a context for English speakers who do not know anything about Romania. I believed that making an existing article available in a different language, English, specifically, is something valuable in wikipedia, because it makes information available to those who do not speak the original language in which an article was written, There is nothing nationalist, unsubstantiated, incoherent or ridiculous about this article. I won't even mention the false accusation/deletion pretext of "grammatical errors", as according to wikipedia deletion policy, you do not delete a page because it is missing a comma, you add it or talk about it in the discussion page. John the Historian 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That recommendation about writing separate articles is contrary to several wikipedia guidelines, and what goes on other wikipedias is in no way relevant here.
If it is not clear, I'll say it again: the info is partly valid, but it is not written well, not placed well, and not referenced well (heck, it is not referenced at all). It is also redundant to other articles, and the sequence of events it groups together was selected whimsically. Furthermore, more than half of the article is a rant about historical events not connected in any logical way to 1940-1944, already discussed in other articles, and written in such a way that they read like your personal manifesto. Dahn 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For heaven's sake. Astonishingly biased in tone, severely unencyclopedic in scope and style (it reads more like an attack page than a history article) and not really all that salvageable, either. I'm sure these events are mentioned in other articles, as well they should be, but let us beware of WP:POVFORK. K. Lásztocska 20:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Delete The phrase "The neutrality of this article is disputed" is a major understatement. The article goes out of it's way (and perhaps serves the purpose of) to regularly assert the magnificence and beauty of Transylvania, and all parts that do not do this serve to explain the evil ways of the bloodthirsty Hungarians. And as far as the factual information is concerned, there are appropriate places for all of it, in separate, existing articles. Calgary 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. An eminently encyclopedic subject, about which I look forward to either an article or sections in other articles, as Hungary's depredations in occupied Transylvania were both real and severe. However, we do need inline notes, proper spelling and grammar, elimination of terms like "bestial" (even if we'd use those terms in private, they don't belong in an impartial encyclopedia, where one must show, not tell), conversion into prose, perhaps even the Hungarian side of the story, if that's readily available. In short, put some work into this, and I'd be glad to support something more in line with Wikipedia policies, which this is far from being. Biruitorul 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. This article is simply unsalvageable. It is clearly written from a biased perspective. Seems to be notable material, but the text itself seems fairly unsalvageable. Smashville 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are other articles describing The Holocaust, the Rape of Belgium, the Nanking Massacre, the atrocities in various world wars and conflicts such as the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. Those are examples of how to write such an article as this. When civilians are murdered in a massive and organized way by troops, the description inevitably paints the killers in a bad light. No real "balance" is possible in which the victims share half the blame, but statements can be referenced and the article made NPOV. This article lists mass murders and has a list of references at the end. In-line referencing would be a minimum requirement in such a case. The terms such as "bestial" are stilted and more factual descriptors could be used. I do not see why there could not be a proper and NPOV article about the events described, based on the references cited, if they are in fact reliable sources. We are placed in the familiar predicament of judging the accuracy of non-English sources which might or might not have been written to further nationalistic purposes. There are English language sources for all the other atrocities I mentioned, besides the non-English histories, and having a couple of them from trusted publishing houses goes a long way to convince English language Wikipedia editors of the validity of the claims. Edison 04:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to comment Actually, it gets more complicated. For one, at least four sources are actually one - Mr. Raoul Şorban, who was not necessarily wrong, but who was not a historian and made no efforts to assess things neutrally. What most of Şorban's essays and articles speak of is Hungarian massacres against Jews.
Of paper sources used, not one is detailed - we aren't told to what measure they were applied and how they agree with the text. At least four of them are very dubious in nature. One is the books whose title is Urmaşii lui Attila (which translates as "The Descendants of Attila" - !), and is published by Editura Miracol, whose main features include books about the Orthodox identity, parapsychology and aliens having visited Earth. Another is a book published in 1985, which I actually have at home: it comes from a time when Communist Romania adopted an anti-Hungarian stance; the book mixes the real with the unreal, and all the "beautiful Transylvania" to "bestial Hungarians" verbiage is one of its prominent features. The third one was published by Vatra Românească - a "cultural foundation" and political party who was ultra-nationalist in tone, and who is seen as having played a part in instigating the ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş; its author, Milton G. Lehrer, seems to have no credentials. Another one is the GID group release - the website, of no reliability of value whatsoever, publishes all sort of jingoistic material.
Of the reliable sources, several also appear to have been misused. I for one would really like to know where Mr. Hitchins makes mention of the events discussed in the article. One article is presented a source twice - once for what it is, a second time for what it says! One other reliable article, the one by Mr. Totok, discusses how a Hungarian poet named Albert Wass instigated a group of Hungarian soldiers to kill two Romanian men and two Jewish women.
As one may see from the above, this article fails WP:OR and WP:RS, and fails them by much.
This also means that the article gives a distorted perspective on things: just how many massacres are we talking about? I note that stubs for the two documented and significant killings already exist: Ip massacre and Treznea massacre. Adding an umbrella article is a likely smoke screen - Romanians may have been killed in small numbers throughout years on end (I note that the article we're discussing also counts arrests as "massacres"), but that does not at all validate a separate article. Whatever can be referenced outside of the main events can easily fit into one of the existing articles. Dahn 09:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. This article belongs to the group of freaky creatures like the Anti-Romanian discrimination one. We started a couple of months ago to get rid of these and deleted the Anti-Hungarian discrimination article. If we do not continue this favourable process, there will be new articles appearing about what Romanian soldiers did in Transylvania and Hungary in 1919, and in 1945. Are you guys sure they were simply distributing Christmas presents to Hungarian children? --KIDB 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Translation of "Masacre antiromâneşti în Transilvania de Nord, 1940-1944", and probably could be sourced better. Massacres are notable, even if they don't happen here. 65.207.127.12 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out again that the two documented massacres already have articles, and there are other articles where additional info should go - which makes this article a POV fork. The concern is about using reliable sources to document significant events. Also, where is "here"? Because I live in the "there". I should also emphasize that citing rowiki existence is not truly relevant: at the risk of repeating myself, rowiki has, to say the least, severe problems with neutrality and reliability - I understand that this article, as it is, is actually a translation of that one (I don't have the patience to discover to what measure). Dahn 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The actions of sockpuppets on this AfD saps any credibility the article might have. It would be helpful if John & the socks could understand that we do not object to a well cited article on the subject, but we do object - especially to the tone - of the current article. Their failure to grasp the distinction between these two positions is unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Tagish, I did not ask anyone to comment for me, and I signed my comments or wrote them while logged in. As I said, the article is an accurate translation. This will be my last edit ever on wikipedia, it was a waste of my time.John the Historian 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the article is a translation seems irrelevant at this point. If the Romanian Wikipedia does not have any problem with the article, so be it, but keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, and as it stands the article has some very clearly illustrated problems/conflicts with policy, which is why it is under deletion discussion on the English WIkipedia. Calgary 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


        • To Gladys/John/Alftort: I do believe it should be clear to you by now that I spoke of Totok's text as one of the very few (two? three?) reliable sources you used for this article - and I insist that you used all of them without citing any. I also indicated that you misquoted it, since it speaks of the murder of four people, of whom two were Jews. Wass was found guilty of instigating these murders, and one note in the source says that he was also indicted for the murder of other people. I'm not about to minimize that in its context, but it fails to substantiate any of the abhorrent claims you make in the article or here. Seasoning spread-eagle propaganda from the Ceauşescu era and the present-day far right current with reliable texts such as Totok's will certainly not make the article valid or intelligent. It is also evidence of WP:SYNTH. Not to mention your avoidance of all other issues, which I do believe is telling. Dahn 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. You have an article on the June 1990 Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş. So why not having an article about the murders of Romanians by Hungarians in the wake of the Second Vienna Award. It's not by hiding information that wikipedia will become encyclopedic. To User:Biruitorul: If you don't like the wording of an article, you don't need to delete it to please Dahn. You can delete text from it (reducing it to a stub), or actually rewrite it. Dpotop 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you inform yourself on the fact that articles already exist for what can be sourced and is encyclopedic. In case they are hard to come by: Ip massacre and Treznea massacre (also note that, unlike the POV dissertation we're discussing here, and in tune with Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş, these articles discuss events and sequences of events). Dahn 15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to that solution as well. However, I must point out that my vote was made for my own reasons and not to please anybody in particular. Like I said, I think hiding the information is wrong, but so is presenting it before it's ready, and clearly this article is not up to 2007 standards. Of course that alone is not reason for deletion, but remember that we do have a perfectly acceptable place where to put the information: Northern Transylvania, with additional articles for more significant massacres. My problem is that this wasn't done cu creier (judiciously), but rather that the inexperienced creator jumped into creating the article without larger considerations of where it would fit in the encyclopedia. It's like putting a bright red softcover book on a shelf full of dull green ones. In short: the overall history of the events can be discussed elsewhere, in context, and does not (from what I can tell) require a separate article. Biruitorul 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the article (except the background section) could be salvaged, as long as the peacock terms are removed and the acts are rightly attributed to the extremist organizations and the far right hungarian leadership, and not to the hungarian nation. It has the same references and reference style as the article about Ip, but i don't see anybody deleting that. Also, in my opinion, the article about Anti-Romanian discrimination is in a much worser state (if you exclude the background section, of course), but its Afd brought no result. Probably the Romanian and Hungarian users here should work together to create a common article about the excesses of the Hungarian and Romanian regimes in WW2 Transylvania. (the Corvinus library has a lot of material about the latter)Anonimu 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree. Moreover, if you consider the Corvinus library as acceptable scholarship, then I presume the books of Lancranjan are acceptable, too. Dpotop 06:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Corvinus Library is an excellent resource, one of the best on the internet (until the Wiki surpasses it, of course!). What is so "unacceptable" about it? K. Lásztocska 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But then, why is its tone so similar to the article whose deletion you ask? For instance, it has a nice full section with "scholarly works" on the Atrocities committed against Hungarians. Well, if this is scholarship, I presume the books of Ion Lancranjan on the Hungarian massacres of Northern Transylvania also qualify as scholarship. PS: here is an example of such "scholarship" as the Corvinus library proposes: [61] Dpotop 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Karen, if you expect other nations not to be nationalistic, don't be nationalistic yourself. In particular, don't expect others to accept Corvinus library as more than a nationalistic rant, on par with Vadim Tudor's. Dpotop 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that every piece of writing in there was brilliant and everlasting, I said it's a good resource. It's a little uneven with regards to tone, I will grant you that, but also remember that the Corvinus Library is a library, not an encyclopedia--slightly different standards of NPOV apply. The material in the library is written by many different people, by the way, so you can't discredit the entire collection based on a few perhaps-overstated opinions of some of the authors (or maybe just facts you don't like, I dunno.) K. Lásztocska 13:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (PS did you call me "Karen"? That's not my name...)[reply]
Sorry for the "Karen".
As concerns the Corvinus library: Given the current status of Wikipedia, the only way I would accept works from the CL is with a "nationalistic" disclaimer. I consider that the collection of the library is clearly assembled for nationalistic propaganda purposes. I will consider the same until some Romanian nationalistic text enters it. At that moment, we could say that the CL is a collection of nationalistic propaganda of both Romanians and Hungarians. Dpotop 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I see more commentary here than there is content in the article. If you people really want to help this article conform to guidelines, as you say, this talk would be on the article's discussion page and all of you would have edited it for NPOV etc. But the fact that most of you nominate it for deletion shows your real intent -not to fix, just to delete. I see that "bestial crime" is not the proper way to describe the burning alive of a 5 year old girl. Also, the fact that the original author listed many references at the bottom counts as no references. I see the exact dossier that details all of Albert Wass' crimes is referenced here, but this is not accepted as a reference. I made NPOV edits to see if you still delete it now, I'm just curious.Prâslea 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that the POV is gone is bewildering, and leaves one wondering if you have any idea of how wikipedia works (for one, you changed "bestiality" to "lack of humanity"...). 3. The problem of POV is just one of the ones up for discussion - the article is redundant to others, it is mostly sourced from unreliable sources, the claims are not directly cited from the sources, at least some sources listed do not seem to have played a part in any section of the text (either directly or indirectly). The article is an example of original research (in both its original and English copy). Dahn 07:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not claim that POV issues are gone, I said I made some edits to conform to NPOV. Anonimu, looking at the article, I see it specifically names the Hungarian army under Horthy's leadership, and various extermist organizations - nowhere does it attribute anything to the Hungarian nation as a whole. Edison, requiring that everything has an English source is like saying "if it is not written in English by English people, therefore it did not happen" and "if you don't speak English, therefore you don't exist". These fall under the categories of arrogance and discrimination, and will be duly noted. K. Lásztocska, you say "slightly different standards of NPOV apply" to a library. That is interesting! Such slightly different standards should be applied to articles that are translations. There should be a wiki tag "This article is an exact translation for the benefit of English speakers and thus may not conform to all enwiki guidelines."Prâslea 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my comment about the "slightly different standards of NPOV": It is my experience that opinion and commentary are more often found in books and essays than in encyclopedias. In a published book it's generally understood that the author will have his own personal take on events; in an encyclopedia (especially one like this) we must be much more vigilant about presenting only facts without any sort of personal slant. K. Lásztocska 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I posted the link on the Romanian noticeboard, because that's what the noticeboard is made for. This AfD should have been advertised on both Romanian and Hungarian noticeboards in the first place. Dpotop 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dpotop's first post on the noticeboard seems entirely within the bounds of WP:CANVASS: Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. If there are other venues for messages alerting potentially interested editors to inspect the article and its AfD, then I would encourage such postings - as I have myself made to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Europe. Dpotop's second and third posts are perhaps less helpful, though not beyond the pale. I'd urge all participants to remain calm or seek to attain calmness. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Tagishsimon: your initiative is excellent, but the good place to post Romania- and Romanians-related stuff is the long-standing Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board. To understand why, compare its participants list with that of the new "Wiki project Romania". Dpotop 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon, as far as I can tell, both your notices came as a result of the article existing, not of it being posted for deletion. Dpotop's announcement came not only after the AfD was started, but also at a time when most votes were being in favor of "delete", with a clear reference to the vote. Dahn 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But AfD often serves as a lever to improve the quality of articles. Alerting those who may be interested in the article or its AfD debate is not, from a good faith perspective (and IMO) canvassing. I continue to think that the more eyes we have on this article and its AfD, the better, and I would encourage neutral postings on other relevant noticeboards, if such exist. -Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as KissL put it here, not posting it on the Hungarian noticeboard was done precisely as a means to avoid the flamewar. I agree with that approach, precisely because that could have only matched the ilikeits with the idontlikeits, leaving us in the same place. Dahn 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think that this article could be deleted if all articles on "ethnic victimization" are deleted. If not, then it must exist, like all the "anti-X massacre" articles and "scholarship". It's a question of fairness. Dpotop 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns KissL not posting the AfD on the Hungarian noticeboard, I think he behaved as bad as you, with the exception that he knew what the result of the vote would be (given that only "picked" editors were invited to take a look, such as Karen). Dpotop 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is being considered for deletion because of its unencyclopedic tone and its reduncancy, not the subject matter (which, as has been said, is historical fact and therefore eminently encyclopedic.) No, it is not a question of "fairness", it's a question of quality and high standards. And stop calling me Karen, that is not my name. I do not care to reveal my real name, so please call me KL or Lastochka. K. Lásztocska 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I took a look at the article: The list of citations is OK, it's just that they must be linked in the text. An online source could be a book by Radu Theodoru, which seems to be the primary source. Now, the only thing to do is some formatting. Dpotop 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not "okay". The two or three reliable sources used are evidence of WP:SYNTH: nothing in Totok or Hitchins validates the topic itself. The rest are highly dubious.
The report issued by the Wiesel Commission lists Radu Theodoru as one of the most vocal Holocaust negationists in Romania (here and here). This is an opinion shared by historian Michael Shafir, who stresses that Theodoru's credentials are that he is a novelist and a former aviator (here, here and here). Sociologist and politologist George Voicu also assesses Theodoru as an ideologist of negationism, and draws a parallel between him and the far right politician Corneliu Vadim Tudor (here). Raluca Moldovan, a Romanian academic and researcher of negationism, referrs to him in much the same manner (here). For additional detail on his contributions, see here, here and here. Alongside his books on this subject (which is titled "Attila's Successors"), he has one titled "Was There or Wasn't There a Holocaust in Romania?". The publisher for both his books, as indicated above, has no reliability whatsoever.
I have already shown the nature of the other sources in one of my comments above.
Furthermore, there being sources adds nothing to the fact that this article's existence isn't validated by secondary literature (as opposed to the individual articles already existing). Dahn 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Irismeister was Romanian. K. Lásztocska 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a translation by me. It is not my writing style. I did not write it, I translated it for the benefit of the english speaking community. As long as there are people like User:Theresa knott deleting other people's votes, comments or contributions, and blocking other people, simply because they decided to add a comment and created an account for doing so, even though I did not ask anyone to comment for me, wikipedia can never be a correct unbiased store of information. This discussion here is about deleting information, not about improving an article to meet any guideline. The intent is to delete, not improve. And I verified that indeed in Romanian literature, including newspaper articles, the term "crime bestiale" is used, which correctly translates as "bestial crimes", and specifically refers to raping the women, then shooting the men and women, and burying men, women and children - some of the children alive, this according to witnesses that hid and managed to flee. This is what happened in many instances. How exactly do you encyclopedically talk about such a bestial crime and not call it a bestial crime, really now? Either not talk about it at all, which is not exactly encyclopedic, or else what? Why is bestial crime not a term that correctly describes these atrocities? What term would you like instead? Or is it that you just don't want this information on the english wikipedia? This artice in the Gardianul nationwide Romanian newspaper, from September 1, 2007, clearly mentions the crime bestiale also mentioned in the wikipedia article you want to delete. So again I ask, how would you correctly write about these in wikipedia so that you don't delete it? Or is it something you cannot write about on en wiki because it is simply censored? John the Historian 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain this edit where you edit the text of one of your sockpuppets. I'd be interested to hear your explanation. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There are 3 statements, 2 of which are from surviving victims, and the 3rd from a legal medicine doctor, at the bottom of the newspaper article I mentioned above. The article is in Romanian, as are the statements of the victims. I translated the 3 statements here for you to read - in the victim's own words - not the words of an editor or author or whatever other biased person:

1. "About 2 am I saw how the Jews were taken to the side of the hill with the lamplight. I heard much noise and cries among the Jews. About half an hour after the Jews arrived up there, I heard machine gun shots. I was scared and hid my wife and children and hid in the corn fields about 200 meters from the place where they were shooting. It was night and I could not see anything, but I heard the cries and screams of the victims. A cry of a young man could be heard more than the others. After this one stopped too, the gun shots stopped also." Statement by Ioan Moceanu, Camarasu village, Cluj province, Romania, who was one of the witnesses to give a statement for the investigation.

2. "...everything we lived through, seen, felt and heard in those four years of orgy can not compare to what we've seen at Sarmasu village. I touched the 126 lifeless bodies... I saw children of 5, 3 and 1 years of age, untouched by bullets, who have been thrown into the mass grave and buried alive. I saw husband and wife hugging each other in their last hug, and I saw a father holding his 1 year old child in his arms..." Statement by dr Matatias Carp, president of Federation of Unions of Jewish Communities in Romania, official delegate as member of the investigation committee for the massacre of Sarmasu village and for the unearthing of the victims.

3. "The first layer of lifeless bodies was almost entirely only children. There were some very little ones, maybe 2 or 3 years old. The oldest were no more than 15 years old. For some it was possible to see where the bullets that killed them entered their bodies, for others their tissues were crushed (probably with the gun - newspaper editor's note) and for one of them both legs were crushed. But there were children for whom, even looking with much care, no exterior sign of what caused the death could be found. So it is thought that these were buried alive..." Statement by dr Emil Mora, legal medicine doctor, who participated at the unearthing of the victims.

Translation into english by me. John the Historian 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer my question above please? Why are you tidying up the edits of one of your osockpuppet accounts? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the fact that the above message by John the Historian is avoiding the point, let us note that both the article he cites and his own comment mention a Hungarian massacre against Jews. What does this have to add to the subject matter here? Dahn 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gladys3000 is someone I happen to know who is not a wikipedian and who created that account to comment on my article. A different computer was used, and it is a different person, however, I can not prove this, because the IP that I use is shared by several dozens of computers. It doesn't matter. As I said, I did not ask anyone to comment for me. If you don't believe me then just block my IP and delete the article and that's it. I don't think I will add any other articles to wikipedia anyway, after this experience. John the Historian 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So she stumbled apon this debate all by herself? What do you take us for fools? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are making assumptions. I did show the article but I did not ask for intervention. John the Historian 04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laughs! She is your meatpuppet, and therefore doesn't get a vote. What about the others? I'm particlualy concerned about Alfort. Did you show him the article? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Alfort or anyone else who commented here. John the Historian 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Dahn allowed to tell others about this discussion though? I only told one person, while he posted it to a forum. John the Historian 04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have noticeboards for a reason...K. Lásztocska 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John the Historian: I did not post anything on any forum, and I did not even post it on a noticeboard. the person to have publicized this vote in this way is, I do believe, one of the guys who voted in your favor. Dahn 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short: it should be deleted as well. All the unreliable material is to be found there as well. I have many times stressed that rowiki has major flaws, especially after seeing how fringe (racist, antisemitic, ultra-nationalist, inflammatory, conspiracy theory-like etc.) material survives there unscathed for months on end. The same point was made by several users there (who, when asking for higher standards or neutrality, tend to be bullied by editors and, in some cases, administrators). This is not to say that most admins there aren't doing their job properly - it just means that the rowiki project is, alas, a mess. Dahn 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some major articles in Romanian Wikipedia have untagged and obviously unfree images surviving since 2004. It's a pity there is no mechanism to monitor how Wikipedia standards are implemented in minor wikipedias and, if the key principles are not taken into account, to take measures to implement them by force. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot delete stuff from the romanian wiki here. You'd have to start a deletion debate on that wiki. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I don't contribute to rowiki, and I'm not going to ask for the article's deletion. I'm saying that most of the issues about the purpose, tone, style, manner, and sources of the enwiki article were evidenced here would also ideally apply to that article. Dahn 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dahn and Lastochka unless the article can be sourced to the recognizable reliable sources, we really do not need fringe historians pushed into the Wiki Alex Bakharev 00:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Wow, this is one of the more ugly battles I have ever seen (even though I have not seen many). There are a lot of personal attacks going on here and tempers are obviously flared. After reading most of the comments here I would like to point out that most articles are not directly translated accross wikipedias. If a topic is important enough to the people on one wikipedia, then they will write an article about that thing. I personally think that this topic is a little interesting and deserves its own english article. I do not, however, think that it should be directly translated from the romanian wiki. Translating things is notoriously difficult and sometimes it is impossible to express a word in one language in another. If John the Historian(or anyone else) wants an article about the subject I am all for it. I think that the whole reason for the deletion nomination is because of the way in which it is written. As I have expressed the reason it is written the way it is is because it was directly translated. I believe it would be possible to rewrite the article so that it was originally in english and just used the romanian facts. I do not know anything about proper sourcing and as such I personally couldn't care less how it was sourced. There are a lot of articles that are very hard to source. Overall I say keep the article under the condition that it is rewritten in a way that sounds as though it was originally in english.--Kyle(talk) 04:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three points: articles already exist, and they can be expanded; the major problem is with the sources used (meaning that the article is not validated by reliable literature, and that the few reliable sources who do not actually validate the topic are manipulated and placed alongside material of the most questionable nature); the article seems to not be an exact translation (not that it would matter), as its author keeps adding material without any specified source. The problem is not at all one of awkward English (though that adds to it), but one of failure to comply with any other wikipedia guideline. Dahn 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition. You wrote: "I personally couldn't care less how it was sourced". The problem is that the article exists on the basis of deeply unreliable and unprofessional sources, and that, in addition, it claims to be validated by other sources who actually validate nothing. This is in breach of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - including the manner in which this article was generated (i.e .: its selection of a topic), and including its version on Romanian wiki. In fact, in this very discussion, you may see its author using sources that speak of Hungarian authorities murdering Jews to "reference" the supposed killings of Romanians (this article). This aside from the article being a content fork. Dahn 12:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite it in respect with wikipedia rules. If there is something wrong with this article, it can be restructured and improved, there's no need to completely delete it. R O A M A T A A | msg  09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I have raised same very relevant and objective issues of reliability. Care to include them in your assessment? Dahn 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manipulative comment. As you noted some posts ago, the article is about killing Jews and Romanians, not Jews alone. Dpotop 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Refrain from personal attacks. 2. I never "noted" such a thing: in fact, I pointed out precisely that the article's author had proceeded to the same amalgamation of sources to make a source "speak" about stuff it did not speak about. 3. Neither the title or the subject of the article make it clear that this is about anti-Jewish massacres. 4. The anti-Jewish massacres committed by Hungary are way more extended than what the article would have us know, and are part of a thing called the Holocaust. That is, contrary to what one of the sources used for the article would have us "know", a documented fact. Including isolated killings of Romanian in this process is evidence of chauvinist joyriding. Dahn 12:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New sources on the Moisei massacre, where 29 Romanians were killed. Romanians were specifically targeted, so forget about saying that this was only part of the Holocaust. Dpotop 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.maramuresmuzeu.ro/ro/moisei.htm
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395185
The second link, in particular, is in English, is reputable, and details the Hungarian excesses against Romanians. In note 56, the author states that:
Hungarian excesses in Transylvania after 23 Aug. 1944 are little known outside the area. Besides the relatively well-known massacre in Moisei (in Maramures) in October 1944, there is a long list of atrocities committed in the villages around Sarmas, Turda, Beius, and Arad. These actions were directed almost exclusively against Romanians, both POWs and civilians.
This is further proof of this article not being ultra-nationalistic propaganda (in spirit, if not in style). Dpotop 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then either add an article on that particular massacre or direct all the info to the Northern Transylvania page. This is what several users on both sides proposed here, as a means to replace the unencyclopedic POV mess we have to deal with. Dahn 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Albert Wass was condemned for instigating the killing of 2 Jewish women and 2 Romanian men. The Romanians were not killed for helping the Jews. While part of the Holocaust, this murder is not only part of the Holocaust.Dpotop 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But: it does not a massacre make and it is bound to have coverage on the article on Wass. Dahn 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment, this AfD should point out why this specifical article should be deleted or not. I've read the article Anatomy of a Massacre (on Wiesenthal Museum Site) and to me it seems a serious article and anyway the Simon Wiesenthal Museum is a reputable source. I don't see on every article regarding localities like Sărmaşu, Turda, Beiuş, Arad or other places notes about the massacres that took place there. But now this article, even it's based on facts that to me seems to have a part of truth, must be deleted. I see that it doesn't matter the article himself, but all this deletion issue tend to be just a political issue. If there are sources and these events are true this information should not be hidden, but rewriten in the proper way. R O A M A T A A | msg  16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read above. Dahn 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Northern Transylvania should hide, under a neutral name, the information about these massacres. I also don't see why we should scatter in 100 articles information that clearly belongs together. The anti-Romanianism of Hungarian authorities and some Hungarian civilians at that time is something well-established. It was politically organized, and even had its own propaganda. Why do you refuse to accept that Hungarian anti-Romaniansm was a fact in those years (Just like Romanian or Hungarian anti-semitism)? Dpotop 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand you. From my POV, the interesting part would be to find sources and compare RO and HU POVs on events such as the killings of Aita Seaca, where the scenario is far more complex, involving both Hungarians and Romanians (Maniu guards). But, please, answer the previous item first. Dpotop 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said: all massacres could have, at least in theory, articles of their own, linked from Northern Transylvania (I fail to see what the latter article would be, if not an overview of everything going on in the region at that time). The issue about what I "refuse to accept" is a straw man: not only did I never make that point or imply that I abide by that view, but it also your argument conflates policy with actual killings. If structuring is to be done properly, this article would be exposed for all its redundancy. Of the hundreds of incidents you cite, only a small number are of encyclopedic nature - the summary of others, if they are documented, can fit into already existing articles. Dahn 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably did not understand: My point is that we need an article on a well-established historical fact: The anti-Romanian propaganda and actions of that period. The article on Northern Transylvania has a different subject. Certainly related, but different nonetheless (a region where several things happened at the same time, including the Holocaust, but also the anti-Romanian attacks). The articles on separate hate actions do not convey the big picture, just details. Now, you may think the name of the article discussed here is not the good one. If not, please choose another. Dpotop 18:59, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_28&oldid=1081098685"