Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

In Times of War[edit]

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

Note 1: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see -- someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bervie Primary School[edit]

The article is only 2 lines virtually mentionning the location and student enrollment and there are no history section, notable facts or special/particular features with it. It can still be merged with the city/region article, otherwise delete--JForget 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "has a very good reputation in its surrounding area" does not prove notability. Corpx 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - it's a primarily school that fails WP:N. Guroadrunner 11:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{nocontext}}. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view - I have not been able to track down any significant sources. Bridgeplayer 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 18:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, NN. Spawn Man 02:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Bridgeplayer 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feargal Ryan[edit]

Non-notable high school student, most likely autobiographical. Page creator removed speedy tag. hateless 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A schoolkid writing an arcticle about himself! --Malcolmxl5 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP is WP:NOT a webhost. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete utterly non-notable individual. I restored both the AfD and Speedy tags, as the article creator is not permitted to remove either. Resolute 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under A7. No assertation of notabilty, this discussion agrees.. Shell ^babelfish 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shig[edit]

This article does not establish notability of its subject, which appears to be a player of three MMO games. CF90 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. hateless 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: non-notable online RPG character. So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, plus not even close to what the article started out as —Travis ^talk 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was a redirect to a list at one point, but it does not even appear on that list. Google turns up a variety of different results, all non-notable. Give it the axe. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Świętokrzyskie traditional medicine[edit]

Unverifiable assertions; has the appearance of original research. --Aarktica 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing on Polish Wikipedia. Nothing on the internet. 100% original research. --Targeman 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment '"Here honey, drink this..." ~ Infrangible 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a double, save on water. greg park avenue 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax. Mandsford 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research or unveriable folk tales, see Zd123as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bearian 18:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, more bullshit from that user: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filomena Hanas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tęgie Dziewice Świętokrzyskie.--Targeman 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. greg park avenue 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it dead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like either a hoax or an attempt to legitimise somebody's homebrew medicine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This homebrew is called in Polish bimber, made from potatoes, yeast and some sugar I think, also spices like pepper or herbs. In English it's called Moonshine. greg park avenue 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Must see this to understand the joke made by the author of this article - Money.pl. After that, Delete!. greg park avenue 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've never thought the joke would mean this. Guess you need to be a true Polack to get it ;-). For the non-Polish speakers, the link leads to an article about a police bust in the Swietokrzyskie region. The cops found a full-blown, self-sufficient illegal alcohol factory complete with label machines and 7,000 liters of contaminated alcohol. So that's the traditional local medicine for frigidity... :-) --Targeman 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Polack it is, PI would be better. Thanks for speaking openly; I love that. And for translating it. I think the other articles of this series including the word Swietokrzyskie you've mentioned above are connected to the link regarding moonlighting, so let's get rid of it too. greg park avenue 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 05:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music at Harry's Place[edit]

I had a SD template removed, but this just seems too local with no notable bands to warrant a wiki article. At best, worthy of a merge into Beloit, Wisconsin. It is also mirrored at Festival's at Harry's Place [sic] . superβεεcat 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - NN, OR - Mostly a schedule of future concert dates —Travis ^talk 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add Festivals at Harry's Place to this nom, the notability issues ar the same for both, adn they should be considered together. DES ^(talk) 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete both unless better sources establishing notability are found. As they stand, just not notable. If either is kept, make one a redirect to the other. DES ^(talk) 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I'm a local and these are not notable although they do draw people from the next town over etc. They're just a nicer-than-average sort of thing that a lot of towns do to provide activities in the parks. Additionaly, they're basically promotional placards, not encyclopedic articles. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both seems nice, but that lack adequate sources to make notable.-- danntm ^T _C 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niether The source provided details all of the information included in the article. It is crazy to think that this article isnt worthy of Wikipedia. The person who calls themselves a local is not from the city, nor do they live in the city, and have likely never been to the event. I have no personal gratification in making this an article on Wikipedia, rather than my fellow city dwellers benefit. It would be a grave mistake, and a missed opportunity on behalf of Wikipedia if these articles are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljluebke (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 July 2007
Comment some wikification per WP:HEY will be helpful here. Bearian 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dhartung. *drew 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shape memory coupling[edit]

3 sentence article doesn't assert importance, nor define what the device even is, just who manufactures it. superβεεcat 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added an explanatory intro. But merging to Shape memory alloy is a possibility. Gordonofcartoon 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) The technique sound encyclopedic; the stuff about the companies does not. I have no idea of notability. Perhaps the first two sentences could be integrated into Shape memory alloy? --Malcolmxl5 23:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The company stuff would need checking, but it looks basically OK. It's certainly notable, but that needs asserting. In Europe the poster child for this technology was its use, as CryoFit, in the Eurofighter Typhoon, but it's been big in military use generally (Must log off now, but I've asked people for advice at shape memory alloy. There's more about it here and here). Gordonofcartoon 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW I (as nominator) withdraw this AfD from consideration as I believe that edits have made this into a viable stub (which still needs a lot of work). - superβεεcat 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water-in-Water Emulsions[edit]

Total Jargon, no references, not a dictionary. superβεεcat 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In clear need of sources and cleanup, but subject's applications may be notable.--Absurdist 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't an article need to assert as much in order to avoid deletion? - superβεεcat 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable then first it should be tagged with {{notability}} or {{expert-subject}}, per WP:N, in order to give editors time to improve the article.--Absurdist 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve asap. Google says this is a bona fide substance. But the jargon needs to go. --Targeman 23:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The jargon is all vocabulary that anyone interested in such things will know, and it would be a long dull read if put into junior-school English. I learned a little from looking at itDaverotherham 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with emulsion until material sufficiently developed to stand alone. Espresso Addict 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Espresso Addict. Emulsion provides the proper context for this subject.--Absurdist 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Article is too specific to be encyclopedic. Possibly if rewritten for a more general audience, but I still don't see clear notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand There needs to be more said, along with references, but it's an acceptable stub. It is not necessary to start with complete articles, per WP:STUB From that guideline "While a "definition" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If little other information is ever likely to be added, then it should go ..." Which certainly implies that if information can likly be added, it should be kept. DGG (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' but needs some attention to make the article more accessible for a general audience -- Whpq 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sounds like an important subject, deserving an article. References of course should be added and the article needs to be expand, so let's give it the time for that. A redirect or merge should be discussed in the article's talk page. Dan Gluck 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of important esoteric subjects out there, and I think that this is one of them. To be sure, the jargon problem needs to be fixed, it needs references and such, but they are fixable problems. Neranei ^T/C 23:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Arthur Green[edit]

Having just one event in the news violates BLP and What Wikipedia is not. Fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to have articles on every sordid event which gets 2 mentions in the news. Edison 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Green was covered more than a couple of times. For example: "No tidy stereotype; Polygamists: Tale of two families", L.A. Times, May 13, 1988, (an early example of Tom Green's self-promotion—in the 1990's he appeared on a half dozen daytime talk shows, stirring up publicity which, he says, lead to his being singled out for prosecution); "Polygamists in Utah may be facing increased pressure from prosecutors as anti-polygamy activists push for an end to the practice", NPR, 1999; New York Times 2001 (his conviction was covered everywhere—very notable because no bigamist had been convicted in decades); "Reuters:Utah Polygamist Sentenced for Rape of Child - Wife", in the Orlando Sentinel among others; "Husbands and Wives: Tom Green Speaks from Prison", a 2003 special on Dateline NBC; "Polygamist cites ruling on sodomy; Utah man fights for his five wives", Washington Times, 2003 (Green analogized polygamy to gay marriage, which conservative pundits jumped on); "Attorney general hopefuls spar in Dixie", Deseret Morning News, 2004 (his prosecution was politically controversial); "Bigamy law debated", Deseret News, 2005 Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I have mixed opinions on this, and the premis of the deletion nomination (one act). Lee Harey Oswald is relevant for two related criminal acts on the same day which gained national recognition but otherwise is not notable. This guy has performed two criminal acts (the second two marriages) which got national recognition (albeit less than LHO). The man clearly is not relevant, but the case might be. I would support the information under a different title or as part of an article on polygamy. But I won't dispute this AdD. --Kevin Murray 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Not every criminal needs a Wikipedia entry, and there is no indication of why this individual or his case are any more significant than any other random bigamist. Resolute 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The random polygamist does not go to jail. He was the first in many years, and is one of only two currently serving time. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. I understand Kevin Murray's reference, but this individual will hardly have the cultural or historical impact that LHO's two most notorious crimes (he had more, I believe) did. Regardless, he's mentioned here and that's enough. Douglasmtaylor 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Normally in this case I would agree with you guys, but I feel this person and his legal problems are notable. Mormon Fundalmentalism is very notable lately as are the recent court cases and the HBO series Big Love.. I would like to see this article kept for that reason. Maybe even expanded. Callelinea 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that Mormon funtamentalism is/might be notable does not argue that this individual is notable. Resolute 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn bigamist. So? Clarityfiend 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of documentary One man, six wives, and twenty-nine children which was reviewed in one of Britain's leading newspapers. (http://www.dfgdocs.com/Directory/Titles/949.aspx) Bigdaddy1981 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solely based on the documentary - I think it gives "historical notability" as required by WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added mention of the film and added two sources for it. Bigdaddy1981 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the documentary and the several years of coverage of the case and its interrelation with Utah politics. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some more references from over those several years would be persuasive in keeping this. --Kevin Murray 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual is famous for being basically the first polygamist criminally charged in decades. His conviction has political significance in Utah and is of enduring note (for example, see this retrospective of the attorney general who prosecuted him). Hell, PBS couldn't make a four-hour documentary on Mormonism without mentioning him. "Tom Green and polygam!" yields 1098 hits in lexisnexis news. This article needs improvement, but Tom Green did not drop from the public's consciousness in 2002. Cool Hand Luke 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primary subject of a film is a definite keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear all, thank you for your work in contributing to the article, especially with regard to notability and references. The documentary certainly sounds notable, but for the reasons I cited in my article nomination, I'm still hesitant to assume notability for the subject depicted in the documentary. Perhaps a new page could be created about the documentary, while discussing all the backstory contained in the current article, and Thomas Arthur Green could redirect there? Eliz81 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's backwards. I'm hesitant to assume notability for a documentary. Few people have heard of it (I certainly hadn't), and even imdb doesn't appear to have an entry for it. But "Tom Green" is a household name in Utah. The documentary should redirect here. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm with Luke, the man is more notable than the doc. - the film merely serves to show his notability. Green is well known in Utah and indeed has substantial name recognition outside the state --- and not just in Mormon circles. Bigdaddy1981 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable legal (criminal law) case. Bearian 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Green is (in)famous. He was charged with not only bigamy, but child rape. Was featured in many national news outlets many times. First modern prosecution for polygamy. Mormon Fundamentalism is big news with the Jeffs case.66.218.190.100 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly has had ongoing notability. I note that the subject had "practically dared prosecutors to go after him by appearing on TV talk shows such as Sally Jesse Raphael's, saying that his lifestyle was a constitutional right." [1] So the normal BLP related arguments about privacy are clearly inapplicable. (While crystal ballish and thus now irrelevant to my argument, it also makes it likely that there will be ongoing future publicity involving this individual.) GRBerry 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : first subject of a prosecution of a polygamist in Utah for decades; subject of a documentary film; has appeared on numerous TV talk shows, including SJR and Jerry Springer; a face to the world of Mormon Fundamentalism--Keep. (Side issue: Maybe rename though, since he's known as "Tom Green" in most sources. Tom Green (polygamist) or Tom Green (Mormon fundamentalist))? –SESmith 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "NOT NEWS" argument does not fly, this person has also been the subject of a documentary as well. Burntsauce 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep, article has been rewritten as a serviceable stub. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wiley, Jr.[edit]

New article. Notability is doubtful at best, and it looks like a copyvio and/or COI. Shalom ^Hello 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per CSD:G12 - copyvio from musician's website —Travis ^talk 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per changes by Eliz81 —Travis ^talk 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete (edit conflict)Due to WP:COPYVIO violations of the copyright of the subject's website. The subject seems to be a notable jazz musician, with several CDs for sale on Amazon and his bio at Allmusicguide [2] which substantiates the basic info in the article. But the article is a copyright violation from the artist's website. The Wikipedia article says: "It was in this Gulf crucible of Houston that Wiley absorbed the blues, gospel, rhythm and blues influences that coalesced to form the big, aggressive and bluesy“Texas Tenor” sound popularized by saxophonists [1], Arnett Cobb, Buddy Tate and others." Wiley's website [3] says: "It was in this Gulf crucible that Wiley absorbed the blues, gospel, rhythm and blues influences that coalesced to form the "Texas Tenor" sound popularized by saxophonists Illinois Jacquet, Arnett Cobb, Buddy Tate and others." I did not compare them sentence for sentence. Besides being at least in part a copyvio, the article has zero references, while alluding to interviews with the subject in Downbeat, an important music magazine, without stating the details of the publication date, article title, or author. WP:RS and WP:V require that such information come from reliable and verifiable sources, and not just the say-so of an anonymous Wikipedia editor. I encourage the creator to provide references for where he got the details in the article, or for others to stub it down to what they can find references for. An article about the musician could be created with references and satisfy WP:BIO but this one fails WP:A and WP:COPYVIO. OK stub. Someone with a good online puiblicatin subscription could probably add material from the claimed Downbeat interview and other sources. Edison 21:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely rewrote the article to create a bare-bones stub. Seems a shame to delete an article on a notable musician. Is this acceptable now? Eliz81 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think what Eliz81 has done is acceptable to deal with the copyvio. It appears that Ed Wiley has had at least one hit recording and so is notable under WP:NMG. The article can now be carefully rebuilt with attention being paid to WP:RS. --Malcolmxl5 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand Clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The hit was a regional hit single in the Houston area according to this [4] and was written and recorded by Teddy Reynolds (with Ed Wiley on saxophone, presumably) according to this [5]; is that enough to pass WP:MUSIC? Change to Keep per new info. --Charlene 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if the regional hit doesn't qualify, his Allmusic biography asserts multiple national tours, recording sessions with a number of very important musicians, and records released on extremely important record labels (Chess, Mercury, Atlantic). Chubbles 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per chubbles1212. Callelinea 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I, Ed Wiley III, an author and journalist for more than 30 years, have just finished an initial draft my father's biography (Chitlin' Circuit Blues: Reflections of a Texas Tenorman), which I have researched for many years. All of the material included in the biography -- notwithstanding the incorrect reference to "Cry, Cry Baby" as a local hit, when in fact it was No. 3 on Billboard for 14 consecutive weeks in 1950 -- is accurate. Fact-checkers need only look at any substantial compilations of Texas Blues between 1945 and 1952 to see that Ed Wiley is the common denominator. I have interviewed him, naturally, and have traveled far and wide to interview many of the leading exponents in blues over the years -- including Little Milton, Henry Hayes, Piney Brown, Roosevelt Wardell, Milt Hinton, Shirley Scott -- all of whom were close associates, musically and personally, and far too many others to list here now. Wiley has received critical acclaim (USA Today, New York Times, Philadelphia Daily News, Down Beat, Jazz Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, BET -- See www.edwileyjr.com) for at least two of his contemporary recordings. He has recorded for Chess, Sittin' In With, Mercury (See the History of Blues and Rhythm, Vol. I and II), Atlantic, DeLuxe, Freedom, Savoy, Gold Star, King, etc. References deleted by Wikipedia editors were attributed to Eugene Holley, Jr., who in fact penned biographical information on Wiley during Holley's tenure with the American Music Center, which is included on Ed Wiley's Web Site. I am new to the Wikipedia procedures for including material, and please forgive me if I am stumbling my way through. But everything is accurate and well-documented on the Web and in the archives of the Smithsonian and Library of Congress. Ed Wiley, Jr., now 77 years old, continues to tour worldwide and record new music. His most recent CD, "About the Soul," was released in May 2006 with major distribution and promotion, and he currently is in the studio on another project. He is also the subject of a major production documentary to be released in August 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingmaniii (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 July 2007

As that appears to be the author of the copyrighted material, we might be able to get OTRS permission to use the original biography. Chubbles 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and detailed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Morgan (comedian)[edit]

Aside from being a constant vandal-magnet, the notability of this subject appears dubious, as there seems to be nothing available in the way of reliable sources from what I could find. Perhaps I'm wrong, so I'm bringing this before AFD for community input. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few TV episodes on IMDb just doesn't impress me. Shalom ^Hello 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The IMDB is not stunningly good on TV shows outside of the US, but I'm not seeing any additional third-party references in the article. --Charlene 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a fairly well-known writer and radio presenter in the UK. ArtVandelay13 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment we removal vandals, not the articles they attack.DGG (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We also remove articles about living people which cannot be verified through reliable sources. Morgan is a co-host of a radio show, and has some writing credits to his name. Do you feel that this is sufficient for inclusion according to our WP:BIO guidelines? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Co-hosts radio show on biggest station in UK with millions of listeners as well as being in the top three podcast chart for last year. He also has a lot of other work, why has it even been nominated?Windy 22:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from reading the nomination, for a lack of sourcing. The solution is to produce reliable sources... GRBerry 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per windy906 and DGG. Callelinea 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - numerous TV writing credits - co-host on MTV show, Radio personality. Kernel Saunters 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article still fails the very basics of WP:BIO and our basic attribution policies and should be deleted for that very reason. We can always create a WP:BLP compliant article iff and when sources become available. Burntsauce 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Community School[edit]

Non notable K-8 school. While it is referenced (mostly from internal school sources), non of the references provide any evidence of notability. I know that consensus on schools notability has not been reached but taking things on an individual basis I would say this article does not meet WP:N. Sorted as part of Wikipedia: Wikiproject Notability Daniel J. Leivick 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Totally not notable,feature being "the school is in the shape of a "W". Supposedly, this is because the school's name is "Westfield"." Besides that, only directory information and cute names of the grade levels. DGG (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another school with no notability established and these elementary/middle schools are not inherently notable 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as another non-notable primary education facility. Heartbreakingly, it's not even a "W", unless you rotate it 225 degrees and squint.[6] --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not verified in reliable, independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although well referenced - all of the references are of a trivial nature when it comes to discussing this particular school.Ga rr ie 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel Williams[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable art dealer. It's written by the art dealer himself. Seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:Notability. -WarthogDemon 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hopelessly self-promotional. Douglasmtaylor 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispamtisement, well wide of the notability mark. Search for Edsel Williams=1 hit, Wikipedia (other hits were for an unrelated guy of the same name). Comes pretty close to being an A7 speedy. Blueboy 96 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abvoe: autohagiography. Bearian 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity bio. *drew 15:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano encyclopedia[edit]

A made up term to advertise a web site. A couple of anonymous editors appear out of nowhere to defend the article on the talk page. Weregerbil 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Started as spam. 'Piano Encyclopedia' does not in itself warrant an article, does it? Douglasmtaylor 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only publications I can find online referred to as "piano encyclopedias" are collections of songs (see, for example, "Schultz’s Best 5 Finger Piano Encyclopedia"]), not chord/scale/harmony references. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SPAM. Spawn Man 02:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sr 13 06:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh Dart League[edit]

This article fails WP:N because it provides no claim to receiving significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. Absurdist 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these related pages:

Armagh Dart League Johns Saws Premier Division
Armagh Dart League Senator Windows Leagues

--Absurdist 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh Dart League Bill Chapmans Non-League. NawlinWiki 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete League is not notable at this time, and third-party sources would be very hard to find. --w p k t sfs 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local League with a small scope Corpx 02:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no indep. sources. Adding another subpage. NawlinWiki 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove Niteclub[edit]

Nonnotable music venue. Not much else to say about it. Shalom ^Hello 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, Not notable enough to warrant own article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Bfp _(talk) 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, but probably meets CSD:A7. And only two types of beer? —Travis ^talk 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Many clubs in England only have one type of beer, but that it has two beers doesn't make it notable. Bearian 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Phillips[edit]

Non notable radio presenter. Google search shows no evidence of notability, article provides none. Sorted as part of Wikipedia: Wikiproject Notability. Daniel J. Leivick 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per CSD:A7 —Travis ^talk 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and violates WP:HOLE. Bearian 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under A7, no claims of notability and fails WP:BIO requirements.. Shell ^babelfish 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus robinson[edit]

Had this tagged for speedy, was a dispute, seems obvious non-notable vanity piece. superβεεcat 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, autobiographical, chock full of trivial nonsense.--Ispy1981 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd almost Speedy Delete per A7. Being an airman, although certainly praiseworthy, connotes no notability, nor does having a girlfriend named Tasha. --Charlene 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article claims some notability (forensic contributions) and then never explains it or sources it or backs it up. Non-notable. Hu 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN soldier Corpx 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:OR. Eliz81 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The way he describes himself, he's just another number in the Air Force. Should be eligible for speedy as per A7, but it is disputed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daopay[edit]

Appears to be a non notable company, no entries on Google news and few Google hits leads me to believe that this company does not pas WP:CORP. Daniel J. Leivick 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a few relevant ghits and 3 google news (archive) hits. That being said, seems only marginally notable anyway. —Travis ^talk 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to get any Google news hits. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

google news - On further inspection, one is unrelated and two look almost the same, but as they are in German, I can't be sure. —Travis ^talk 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and merge with Micropayment. Bearian 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reached to delete, whether and what to merge is as always an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs)[edit]

Pure and simple: plot guide nonsense. While each summary is small, it's still a bit of fancruft/listcruft in my view. If people want to read about each individual issue: they can go to numerous other sites to find out information. Why exactly should Wikipedia have articles like this? The previous AFD for this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). There was some keeps, some merges and one delete. RobJ1981 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Ultimate Spider-man Article - I say that because well I have seen thoese other sites and they have nothing on them, this could be used as the ultimate spider-man character history.Phoenix741 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep . I work hard at keeping this thing accurate and I think its one of the best articles on here.BlueShrek 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultimate Spider-Man - the information is already in Ultimate Spider-Man#History of Ultimate Spider-Man this seems like unnecessary duplication. (Emperor 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If all the info is already on the ultimate spidy page, then Delete this one.

Well I haven't had a chance to do a complete comparison so there may be some information from here that could be salvaged. I could have voted for deletion but I wanted to leave the option open to whoever does the merge (if that is the outcome). I vote delete where there is nothing to be saved. (Emperor 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, makes sense.Phoenix741 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt the story arcs page goes into WAY more detail.BlueShrek 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep I think we can keep it as a structured list of USM story arcs. It's structured chronologically, and should be a legitimate fork of Ultimate Spider-man. Since "listcruft" isn't a guideline or policy, and there's no guideline or policy against having short plot summaries in lists, I'm not sure what the argument for deletion is here. -Chunky Rice 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the clearer it is to me that there's no reason to delete this article at all. It's no different from any other list of serial fictional works. -Chunky Rice 20:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to main, after trim. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. If they're too long, you're doing something wrong. --Haemo 00:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Way too much unencyclopedic info. Relevant content should be placed in the history section on the Ultimate Spider-Man page if it is not already present. There may not be an anti-list cruft policy, but it is still a problem. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What information, specifically, do you think is "unencylopedic?" I don't see it. -Chunky Rice 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summaries (which make up the entire article) do not contain encyclopedic information, the article is little more than a big violation of WP:PLOT. Some of the important info should be merged into the history section on the main article, the rest should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief plot summaries are explicitly permitted by that policy and the relevant guideline. The summaries here are fairly brief for the most part. I certainly wouldn't object to trimming down some of the longer ones. This article, is in essence a list, with plot summaries. Not one large plot summary. -Chunky Rice 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Ultimate Spider-Man has a plot and this is a overly long summary of it, I realize there are individual story arcs, but they are all part of a larger story that should be summarized succinctly on the main page. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that different from any serial fiction? We have scads of lists of television episodes. Many of those are part of serial storylines. How is this different, in concept, from featured list,List of Lost episodes? -Chunky Rice 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the list episodes pages should probably go too but I don't have the energy to fight for it. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think we should be deleting things that have attained "featured" status, then I guess there's not much more to say. -Chunky Rice 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on closer inspection of the issues involved I think you are probably right there isn't too much difference between this article and the featured Lost list. I might have to change my vote. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point. I have worked on similar lists of TV episodes and stated that I consider a mini-series/limited series to be the equivalent of a TV episode and the logic conclusion of this is that a "List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs." (as proposed on the talk page) would make sense. So I am prepared to change my vote to keep but my concerns above still stand - the Ultimate Spider-Man entry (and the other Ultimate entries mentioned) have very detailled plot breakdowns almost identical to this one and I don't want two sets of the same data. However, this solution could fix the problems I see with a lot of the Ultimates entries in that they are too long already and break tend to break the plot down into a paragraph or two on story arcs which is a bad thing. If we keep and rename the story arc entries it is on the understanding that the main entries are heavily pruned back and instead of breaking down the story arcs they give a brief overview of the plot (referencing the primary sources where need be so instead of "Ulimate Spider-Man #6-10 in this we see...." we get "and Spider-Man said 'something'(ref)Ultimate Spider-Man #8(/ref)" or something like that). This will set a precedent and give people a lot of headaches and I could see quite a few people being unhappy about this but I can't fault the reasoning and with a refocus and a heavy edit on the main entry it can be classified as a legitimate content fork. It'd need a consensus though on the heavy pruning or we end up with an ever worsening mess and I'm not going to be caught voting for that. Balls in your court. (Emperor 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep the main article is big enough already, and given the strong notability of the series I think an article covering the major story arcs is reasonable. A merge would either lengthen the article to immense proportions or result in valuable information being lost. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Central[edit]

Creator contests speedy deletion for non-notability. Original AfD discussion was last year, before the web page actually went up, so a new discussion is appropriate. FisherQueen (Talk) 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial mentions dont give notability to a subject. Corpx 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is an extensive (and somewhat unorganized) discussion of the merits on keeping the article on the Dread Central talk page. I'm not voting this time because I have a bias (I about lost my mind trying to remove Dread Central spam last year). Last time I would have voted to delete (and I might have if I check the logs), but this time I'd probably be leaning towards a very weak keep. Chicken Wing 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep. It's articles have been featured in independent non-trivial publications. Needs to be categorized, wikified, and expanded. --Absurdist 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some categories to the article that are applicable. Valuerockr 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)— Valuerockr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided do not "feature" Dread Central- they quote one sentence from it. Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines for web content, and doesn't have any independent non-trivial reliable sources.-Wafulz 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I like the site and have used it in the past I agree with Wafulz - those mentions are very minor and/or not WP:RS. Find better sources and I'd be happy to vote to keep but as it stands it it doesn't measure up. I see it was deleted comprehensively a year ago and recreated - I'd suggest if someone is set on creating this article they should use their sandbox to get it up to speed (and get input) or this could keep going around. (Emperor 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. We are a news and review site, these publications feature our quotes. Variety is hardly trivial and having your quotes reprinted in it, much more, highlighted in a best of article is pretty good recognition of what you do (Consider DreadCentral AND Steve Barton's quotes appear there). Having your podcast highlighted on a best of the net podcast show is not too bad either. Be sure to drop by the Dread Central talk page theres a lot more there for your consideration. Valuerockr 00:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the Variety piece was about you then that would count but it isn't (I've seen much more extensive mentions queried) - that only counts as a trivial mention. As I say I have looked through what you have supplied and they fit the criteria (I think the best is [7]) (Emperor 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I suppose, but the fact that it was a write up on the best blurbs of the year seemed to make it more than a trivial mention. That was my point, to have our blurbs listed as the best along with people like Larry King is fairly notable I would imagine. The problem here is theres very little professional review and highlight of publications like us.Valuerockr 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes it can be tricky - the bar isn't any higher than for other entries but the lack of coverage can make things difficult. As well as films I also work on comics and they tend not to get mainstream media coverage. With that in mind you might want to have a look at some of the comics web sites which have faced similar struggles like Newsarama and Comic Book Resources - the former made it on this list [8] (which probably saved it) and the latter is on a number of library lists of good resources. This might give you another angle of attack. (Emperor 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. I've silently watched the ongoing saga that is Dead Central and The Horror Channel. DC does some great work, but seems to have stolen the name from The Horror Channel (as i remember it, dreadcentral.com forwarded to horrorchannel.com for years). For further proof, myspace.com/horrorchannel has been converted into a Dread Central site and the other guys have had to start over at /THEhorrorchannel. A lot I've read about the 'breakup' seems fishy and it seems like these guys pulled the carpet out from under The Horror Channel. I wouldn't be surprised to see a cease and desist order coming from The Horror Channel any day now. The Dread Central name was basically stolen from them. My two cents. EDIT: I posted this is the Discussion section but not here (sorry, new to this): "...please refer to [9] ... an ongoing discussion regarding the shananigans in this entry. Every single person editing/discussing this entry is either a Dread Central staff member or fanatical forum-goer...". Hope this helps the decision along.Greymatter0 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — Greymatter0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I wasn't going to vote to delete originally because I was assuming good faith, but the entire article appears to be one big conflict of interest nightmare. While we're at it, we might consider a vote to delete the articles for the Dread Central writers (Kyra Schon and Scott A. Johnson) that appear on Wikipedia as well as the article entry for The Horror Channel. Chicken Wing 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since you mention it, you can plainly see on The Horror Channel kwlow was maintaining the entry until he was no longer with the company - at which time it seems he began adding information about Dread Central's seperation and an external link to their website. Looks like this eventually led to the entry being protected. Greymatter0 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ranting removed...

Sorry for my rant. You want to question my integrity thats fine. I busted my ass for that place and was shit on in thanks. We all were. So to be called a thief and have someone assume we were the wrongdoers in that fall out cuts pretty deep still. But you dont have to believe me and I wouldnt expect you too either. It will say that it stings a bit to be held in judgement. You may have followed what happened, I had to live it. And I am still living with it now as I pay off the debt I sank myself in so I could work for them.

By all means delete our entry. But dont take down the others, even The Horror Channel listing should stay. After all is said and done a horror channel is something many of us still care to see a reality. Though I dont think they even know its there, it's listing is valid in Wikipedia as a notable endeavor regardless of what ultimately happened.

Ill see to it that none of our "fanatical" forum members give you guys grief either. I for one understand and respect what you all are doing here. Thanks for the considerationValuerockr 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Valuerockr, I for one can understand where you're coming from. However, the obvious burning passions behind your actions here are a red flag for this entire entry. Greymatter0 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Greymatter0, your comments about us stealing the Dread Central name from the Horror Channel are quite fictional. Perhaps fact checking would be a good idea when you want to accuse a group of hard working people of theft, especially if you want to be a Wiki editor. Makes sense, I am sure. After this much trouble over one Wiki entry I think it is time to delete the Dread Central listing. Don't forget, fanatical people are running along both sides of the fence here, not just DC fans.krytensyxx 8:58, 17 July 2007 (EST)

Comment. When I said DONT come here and cause problems I was talking to staff as well Kryten :) Im only here responding to the courtesy Greymatter0 extended me by sympathizing with my position. Im wholey serious about letting this issue drop and accepting the vote without further contest Valuerockr 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate that :) And I have remained completely neutral in my edits and been 100% upfront about who I am. Wikipedia's own policy states that conflicts of interest are frowned on but not 100% disallowed. I have stated my case quiet well I think and what ever happens happens at this point. My only motivation with my actions were to state my case for inclusion based off things many of us deem notable. And that is in the long, albeit disorganized Talk page for the article. All I ask is that people consider all the items presented there in making their decision. Theres a lot of notable things in this world that would never be listed here unless someone with a conflict of interest didnt take the time to submit it, doesnt make the subjects any less worthy of inclusion. Thanks again for the consideration Valuerockr 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Greymatter0 I thought your username looked familiar. Interesting to see that your contributions only regard this entry, you wouldnt happen to be the same Grey matter listed here http://www.horrorchannel.com/forumsa/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=9553 or http://forums.pligg.com/my-pligg-site/2373-slash-horrorchannel-com.html here? Coincidence? Who knows. Besides this is becoming silly. All this over our entry on Wikipedia meanwhile there are one line listings for PORN DVDS :) FisherQueen , Chicken Wing , (Emperor thanks for the discussion, I always enjoy a nice debate. Thanks especially to FisherQueen who reopened the discussion for us it was much appreciated. Valuerockr 01:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Delete. It may be possible to support a claim for notability for this website, but the third-party sources now referenced only reprint one-sentence movie reviews. That amounts to a reprint of a press release, which is trivial per WP:WEB. Citations of non-trivial sources written about this website, not just reprinting reviews, must be included to establish notability. In addition, any rewrite of this article should not include original research first-hand accounts.--Absurdist 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article has been moved to a more proper title and underwent cleanup since its nomination for deletion, making it appropriate enough for Wikipedia, but it still needs further cleanup. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lions in popular culture[edit]

Yet another "pop culture" list that is cluttered, useless and doesn't serve much purpose. As I've said many times: put the notable ones (if there is any) on the main article and leave it at that. A massive list of each and every mention or reference to the subject isn't a helpful article in any way at all. RobJ1981 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate and trivial listcruft. Madonna danced with a lion in a video once? NO?!--Ispy1981 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and very hard to maintain, especially if you're going to lump in "lions in art" et al. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form. This article could be good if it actually focused on describing the lion's significance to many societies over hundreds of years. Unfortunately, right now, it's just a list of times that lions have appeared in some media.-Wafulz 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is a closer case than others because of the various uses and mythologies - cross human cultures - that have arisen about lions. Ultimately, coverage of the lion as a synonym or mascot for strength, power, and eventually nation-states is better reserved for lion or the various places its symbolism is employed: e.g., Coat of arms of Norway. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response But mythology and such...that would be classical culture, wouldn't it? Calgary 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should be about the role that lions play in popular culture, how they are percieved in popular culture, etc. Any "in popular culture" article should be an article, not a list, as the list (like this one) usually turns out to be a collestion of loosely-associated information. I'd suggest a rewrite (because lions are notable in popular culture, as being "the king of the jungle" and so forth), but the subject is much better covered by the "in popular culture" section, which deals with the subject in an appropriate manner. Also, I think everyone should keep in mind that "in popular culture" is not the same thing as "in media". Calgary 20:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. Were there an article discussing lions in culture (note: not POPULAR culture but culture as a whole, worldwide and spanning the centuries), and were the article to have a discussion as well as a list, that might be keepable. But this is just a list. What's more, much of what is in this list is not popular culture (heraldry is popular culture? Really?) and would be more suited for an article on classical, renaissance, or early modern art. --Charlene 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm..heraldry was popular culture at the time (but anyway). To all those above it will be alot easier to make a better article from here than a blank page. This is how many articles are improved over time. The whole point of WP is it's a work in progress. Deleting sometihng which could potentially be a much better article is counterproductive.

- Sounds like a good argument for "Move to Lions in culture and expand. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and cleanup I have read the page and briefly done some clean-up on it. This is not "just a list" as many have been contending; it contains extensive discussion as well. It should be renamed to a more appropriate title such as "Cultural depictions of lions", appropriately sourced (it has some sources now, but not enough), and expanded. As it stands, it has the bare bones that need to be fleshed out some. 206.246.160.29 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - as someone who is working on lion to bring it to FA, there is just way too much to be in the main article yet it could be well synthesized into an ample article itself. "Cultural depictions" covers all bases well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "it's not good enough for the main article" is a reason to delete it all, not to keep it on its page.
Don't misrepresent what Casliber has said. The initial comment is "There is just way too much to be in the main article; it says nothing about it being "not good enough"! And don't forget to sign your posts. :) MeegsC | Talk 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when trivia like this gets too large for the main article, the correct response is to delete it, not merge it off. --Haemo 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, cleanup per 206 and Casliber. Author made the mistake of saying the IPC phrase, which is like pouring sugar near an anthill. This needs to be edited with an idea of tightening it up, since lions have actually been part of "pop culture" since ancient times. Mandsford 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename -- I've removed a few more of the trivia type examples, if this is kept to examples which are notable for their depicitions of lions then it should be better than the usual In popular culture articles. Saikokira 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The article has improved since it was AfD'd, and there is way too much good stuff here to incorporate into the Lion article. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have moved the page to Cultural depictions of lions.-Wafulz 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-cellent...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this article pulling a Charles VII, it's still as barren of cited analysis as ever. --Eyrian 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all trivia needs to deleted; this is not the encyclopedia of the banal. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm..I guess you'll be thinking about nominating all various cartoon episode and serial articles sometime soon then?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meaningless laundry list that gives no understanding of significance. --Eyrian 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The significance is in the main article on Lion, the reason its not there is it would make the article too big - it is currently a very messy sub article I concede but that is no grounds for removing it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Better here than there" doesn't work. I'm quite happy to add Lion to my watchlist and keep it clean. I've done such things before. If all the significance is in the main article, why include the insignificance here (or anywhere)? --Eyrian 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't insignificant. Many many articles have subarticles where topics are covered in further detail. Most if not all elements pass notability and as far as trivia is concerned, we have Featured Articles on Simpsons episodes and American based childrens' books I've never heard of here in Australia (I',m not criticising these but highlighting just how big wikipedia actually is).cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as a decent idea, but rename as Lions in culture or Lions in symbolism, as suggested by others, and clean up per WP:HEY. Bearian 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the phrase "popular culture" may be misused in this case, I think that lions do have a "part" in society, and factual statements, such as those in the "lions in religion" sections among others, are far from the trivial snippets of information that the term "in popular culture" leads us to believe. Now that the name has been changed, I think the article is reasonably encyclopedic, but could improve a lot in terms of expansion. All articles can do without trivia, but to say that lions aren't depicted often in social and cultural references is untrue. Spawn Man 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, I think I'll be able to improve it a great deal if it's kept, but there's no use wasting my time now while the issue is still pending... Spawn Man 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rename and recent improvements have done much to redeem it, encyclopedic value is clear. I could easily see (for example) a master or PhD thesis on this topic. Debivort 02:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - per Casliber. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per Casliber and the comments by Debivort. It looks like a lot has been cleaned up already. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grr! No one ever cites me! Spawn Man 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Spawn Man. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;) - Spawn Man 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I am no fan of useless pop culture sections or articles, I feel this is an important one. Not every animal needs to have a cultural depictions article, but this one does. Lions have always been a major cultural symbol on many different continents. If we can weed out the non-notable pop-culture cruft and keep the (many) more culturally significant examples, this can be a fine and useful article. It would be a different story if it was Cultural depictions of pink fairy armadillos. Sheep81 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but retitle. "Popular culture" is more likely to be considered POV since not everyone is going to think of the Maasai cultural beliefs as popular, and this article title should doubtless ensure that the beliefs of a tribe that lives amidst lions is covered. Depictions is still not sufficiently wide as it covers only sculpture, writing or art - tangible objects - what about folklore ? Shyamal 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to improve. This certainly isn't any more "trivial" than are articles for every track on every CD ever made, or pieces about anybody who's ever had a voice role on the Simpson's! If this information gets put into the main article on Lions, that article would (rightly) be criticized for being too long. MeegsC | Talk 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber and Spawn Man. --Jude. 11:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber, Spawn Man, etc.. Too often articles that can become good or featured get deleted instead because someone thinks that they may be "Trivia" or "un-notable" --Kevmin 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still needs a lot of work, but the topic itself is notable and the rename and introductory paragraph help frame the topic. Fine with me if people want to pare back the lists, though. Specific lions in film, art, fiction, etc should be here because they illustrate a larger point, not because it is practical or desirable for this article to list them all (there are too many, for one thing). Kingdon 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do they illustrate that larger point? Making that claim without a cite is OR, and not of the trivial, forgivable variety. --Eyrian 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronohabituation[edit]

Unreferenced entry on a disease. Author contested prod, but the fact that the only information on Google says that it isn't real shows that this article is probably a hoax. BassoProfundo 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - probable hoax —Travis ^talk 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. WebMD (among others) has no articles on topic.--Ispy1981 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three lonely little Google hits. I dunno about a hoax, but maybe a protologism, or just something someone thinks sounds cool as a name for a strange sleep phenomena, one of the two... Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is all that turns up, I doubt the disease is real.-Wafulz 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article describes a "sleep phenomenon", not a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.200.43 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2007

- Comment. You say [toʊ'meɪ.to], I say [toʊ'mɑ.to]. What really matters is that the article has no references. BassoProfundo 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- probably hoax. In addition to non-scientific google hits, I happen to know a scientist who studies sleep/wake cycles. I realize we can't appeal to experts on here, but there's no offline experts who can confirm the existence of this phenomenon either. Eliz81 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Hoax. - superβεεcat 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It sounds like somebody just put a name to something a number of people I know do, which makes this not a hoax, but a neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits on Medline suggest not medically used for the sleep disorder described. Espresso Addict 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with great gnashing of teeth. In contrast to the frequent AFD misuse of original research to mean {{unreferenced}}, this is most definitely research of the very original kind. Sleep topics are better served by the articles we have including parasomnia, shift work sleep disorder, and circadian rhythms among others. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Chen[edit]

This is an article about a musician who doesn't appear to meet music notability guidelines. It's written in an extremely promotional tone, with lots of aggrandizing statements ("attended a top 200 school", "famous on the internet", etc). The information is also misleading/contradictory. In this article, it claims he won the "International Warsaw Piano Competition"- the school article refers to it as a scholarship, and the source calls it a workshop. There are lots of statements about early/personal life which suggest a conflict of interest. There are no non-trivial reliable sources about the subject for verification. Wafulz 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notability and vanity--the author is aznxboy1228 {Asian Xboy 12/28--the subject's birthday is December 28)--Ispy1981 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per evidence cited above, fails WP:BIO, WP:SPAM. Eliz81 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search on Yahoo: 0 hits matching this guy on the first two pages. Search on Google: hit #5, Wikipedia. Pretty obvious vanispamcruftisement.Blueboy 96 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete per nomination. --Dezidor 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom but if more independent reliable sources come up I am willing to change to a Keep. Callelinea 00:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, autohagiography, and we've deleted musicians with more professional accomplishments and media attention than this (e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinderella Liao). Could only find two sources about him on Gnews archive [10] or through a Google search on his Chinese name and "Warsaw" [11]:

Rydzynski, Michael (2006-09-14). "Pianist experiences a legend's homeland". Orange County Register. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
"陳思凡獲「華沙鋼琴營」獎學金將前往波蘭首都華沙進修琴藝 (Alvin Chen wins Warsaw Piano Camp Scholarship; soon to head for Polish capital to hone his piano schools)". World Journal. 2006-08-30. (Same story later republished in newspapers in China, e.g. Xinhua [12], China Economic Net, [13]).

Anyway I think there's an Angels pitcher by the same name, who would be notable by default per WP:BIO (under section "Athletes", for having played in a professional league), so even if kept, this should be moved somewhere else. Never mind, the GNews hits I saw were due a smartass sportswriter reporting on a bloody Little League game between teams who just happen to have the same name as MLB teams. Cheers, cab 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I love that word, autohagiography. Bearian 21:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zanta (DJ)[edit]

Specious assertion of notability; no sources provided; trivial ghits, although one site appears to confirm existence of a DJ by this name but fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Author of article appears to be the subject; may meet WP:VANITY. BFD1 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, likely WP:COI as well. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not even that notable in his own country, as the article would have you believe. In a contest for the most popular Finnish DJ, he came in 39th out of 100.--Ispy1981 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ispy1981 --w p k t sfs 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. See also WP:HOLE. Bearian 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. The content of the article at the time the discussion was started only became continually more absurd, and it may be possible the entire article was an attempt at making fun of an individual the creators know. There was no serious attempt to discuss the article by its creators. Leebo ^T/C 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimp Chapman[edit]

Hoax article and contested prod. A Google search reveals nothing relevant to the mentioned information. It's pretty clearly not a real biography, but no criterion for speedy deletion appropriately covers it. Leebo ^T/C 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I commend your very careful interpretations of policy, but I don't think "contested prod" describes what just took place here. The original author removed the prod tags, did not address the concerns raised by the prod, and responded by adding a phrase to the article about the subject having a rare disease so that 15% of his bloodstream is composed of beef gravy. I think this pretty clearly falls under WP:CSD#G1. --Jaysweet 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fairly strict in my application of WP:CSD#G1. If you read the page on patent nonsense, hoax articles are not considered nonsense if they're coherent. Until a consensus exists to treat them as such, this is the only way allowed through policy. Leebo ^T/C 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that sentence was added by an anonymous user, and I removed it as unsourced negative information. I'm sure no one would bat an eye if I just deleted the article, but I'd rather follow policy. Leebo ^T/C 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I mean, you've got way more experience on Wikipedia than me, and you're an admin and all that, so I'll defer to your interpretation... but I'm not sure I'd consider a rant about "a serial killer... who is best known for almost being cast on Gilligan's island" to be "coherent." Just my opinion. Also note that the IP who just edited the talk page has also made implausible Chimp Chapman-related edits to Duane Chapman and Mark David Chapman, which were reverted. I think it's generous to call this a coherent hoax, but obviously it's your call.

In any case, my advocacy for speedy delete stands. Cheers! --Jaysweet 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly obvious hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced nonsense. A duck test leads me to believe the author and anonymous user are the same person. The author's contributions consist only of 4 edits to this article. The anon's contributions consist almost entirely of adding nonsense about Chimp Chapman to other articles over the past few days. I would argue that it would almost qualify for {{db-bio}} even if it wasn't patent nonsense. While the person would have led an interesting life, I'm not sure any of the claims made meet WP:BIO. --Onorem Dil 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment on the article talk page about the figurative killer whale made me giggle. Delete as utter fabrication. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It may not be a G1, but it's definitely an A7 (non-notable bio) and almost certainly a G3 (obvious hoaxes qualify as silly vandalism). Either way, do it now. Obvious hoax. Editor has been warned with {{uw-hoax}}. And even if the speedy is declined, I think I see it snowing outside. Blueboy 96 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. ...beef gravy? --Charlene 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious hoax. Greswik 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1, A7, G3, just plain snowball, take your pick, but please, make it go away Iain99 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that original author is now adding absurd pictures which I think removes all doubt that it's patent nonsense and/or silly vandalism. So tagged. Iain99 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a violation of WP:POINT if I helped the hoaxster fix the infobox? heh... --Jaysweet 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lal Masjid siege, whether and what to merge is as always an editorial decision. If anyone would like to actually nominate the rest for deletion, they are of course free to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asma Aziz[edit]

Unfortunate incident, but I don't think this person pases WP:N superβεεcat 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found several similar articles that should probably be included in this AfD: Umme Ghazi, Hassan Ghazi, Umme Hassan and Maulana Muhammad Abdullah. They are all associated with this event, but likely do not meet WP:BIO. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Taprobanus 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lal Masjid siege Taprobanus 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Asma Aziz with Lal Masjid siege if more sources confirm she played a significant role. Merge Maulana Muhammad Abdullah who is notable as a khateeb at the mosque, a fairly important one. Delete the others. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Asma Aziz. Note that none of the others are actually up for afd unless someone actually nominates it for deletion (i.e., putting up a afd template on the page). Call me a process wonk, but seeing how the lack of a afd template actually disallows those people who frequent that page to know that the article is up for deletion, I don't see how any true consensus can arrive. Pepsidrinka 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model Cycle 10[edit]

This article appears to be a cleverly designed fake. The "references" are primarily for the original America's Next Top Model. The links to "The BbitchD network" do not work, if they ever did. The original version also appears at User talk:Fudgehair. Apologies if I'm wrong about this, but I can't see how this can be real. I ran into it only b/c Category:Sandakan's Next Top Model appeared on the Special:Wantedcategories page. Thanks, all Ebyabe 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - looks like a hoax. Or let me say like this: if it were real, it would probably have received a lot more attention by now from legitimate editors. Shalom ^Hello 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Title does not match content. After deletion, consider redirecting to America's Next Top Model; the real show will probably air Cycle 10 about six months from now, but Cycle 9 hasn't started yet and nothing distinctive is known about Cycle 10. --Metropolitan90 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is basically a cycle of America's Next Top Model, with all character's names changed and episodes in different orders. It looks like a hoax to me.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State leaders by year[edit]

This is not an encyclopedic page but a list of lists. Wikipedia is better served by deleting this and all of its off sets and substituting catagories based on either decade or century in its place. NobutoraTakeda 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT NobutoraTakeda has been banned from Wikipedia for disruption.

Strong Delete - This is one of the clearest examples of WP:NOT#LINK that I have seen. In fact I think all the other articles in the series should be deleted -- Gudeldar 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:LIST (in chronological order and 'lists can be used as a table of contents'), it is part of a wikiproject and has red links showing which years have been done. A disucssion has been ongoing on splitting which I would support as it is overlong but that is not an issue for AFD. Davewild 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The list may be a valuable information source." That is from the lists page. This information is not a valuable information source. It lists every year and is impossible to fill. It requires OR or subjectively chosing which is which. It also has no purpose except to list dates of dates which are better served by a catagory than a list. This is an encyclopedia, not a grouping of redundant pages. NobutoraTakeda 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument we must delete all lists organised by date. It is not OR as it has clearly defined limits i.e. the leaders of states by the year. A category and list do not have to be exclusive. As per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes 'These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.' In this case the list provides a simple navigational support between the different years and between the different overall list of leaders such as Religious leaders by year. As we are WP:NOTPAPER having the pages showing who is leader in a particular year is very notable and this operates as a main page for the series. Davewild 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say "by that argument" I will respond in kind. By your argument, we should also have a list of world leaders by hair color, by height, by ethnicity, by religion, etc. If the information was important, it would be listed on the World Leader's page. If you want to have something to catagorize the world leader so that people can find it by what century they were in, then please make a catagory. Right now its a worthless list that talks up a lot of room and can never be completed. Just because we aren't paper doesn't mean we have to have every unnotworthy list that lacks any descriptive text or notworthy references.NobutoraTakeda 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your using the slippery slope fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes we have the Category:Lists of state leaders by year but given the number of these, the list is easier to navigate especially if researching non-consecutive years. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Researching non consecutive years? Wikipedia isn't about making research easier. If a catagory can't do what is needed here then make its not really needed. Its not only redundant, its three times redundant. NobutoraTakeda 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will spell out the redundancy. Talk a leader of 265 AD. His name will be on his page with the date. His name will by on the list of leaders for 265. His name will be on the other lists of leaders for the other dates. His name will be listed to by the catagory and the state leaders by year list. Thats four things doing the same exact thing and they all need to go and be reformated by having a catagory for leaders by dates and having subcatagories for the individual centuries. The rest is way too redundant. NobutoraTakeda 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an excellent navigation device that is exactly the same as the category, right? NobutoraTakeda 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy Close Comment withdrawn, I apologize to the nominator. Mandsford 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of not having good faith and not reading when you didn't read that there is already a catagory that has everything there already? NobutoraTakeda 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. NorthernThunder 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that the exact same information should be duplicated in both the normal page and the catagory? Seriously? NobutoraTakeda 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments Taprobanus 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that the exact same information should be duplicated in both the normal page and the catagory? Seriously? NobutoraTakeda 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Speedy Close Meets WP:LIST in full, and this is a nonsense nomination by an editor on a WP:POINT trip. Close with predjuice. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Wikipedia List say that a list is able to duplicate 100% the information included in a catagory? Your accusations are unwarranted and you have demonstrated not reading the arguments. NobutoraTakeda 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a category can do some things, the result of retiring these lists would be a mass of irrelevant categories on a heap of articles. The formatting within these allows them to be informative lists and, with some work, several of them could reach featured list status if the community can develop a consensus on how to format them to meet said requirements. Orderinchaos 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a catagory. This has been pointed out many times. If the catagory is problematic, why not propose the deletion of it? There should only be one or the other. NobutoraTakeda 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Davewild. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Structured list, meets WP:NOT#LINK. --Canley 13:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you honestly think that Not#Link approves of lists that are exactly 100% the same as a catagory? NobutoraTakeda 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but this isn't exactly 100% the same as a category. Are you going to respond to every keep suggestion? It's getting a bit repetitive, it's pretty clear what your opinion is. --Canley 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and close as per above arguments and developing consensus. This not a weak listcruft. It is not merely interesting. It appears to be a useful project, an index if you will. This discussion is a case of the missing snowball. Bearian 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeera Polyandre Charnoe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts a lot of notability, but I can't seem to confirm any of it whatsoever - which seemed to be the problem in the first AFD, two years ago. I recognize that Google searches for subjects from decades ago can be challenging, but one would think that someone involved in so much activity would have more than a couple dozen hits, which is all I get. Google searches for things like the Frontiers of Science Fellowship turn up a number of hits, but those looked to be to a different topic; the "Honoured Living Sanctuaries Corporation" mentioned as a Canadian government operation comes up blank; the books mentioned get zero hits (and from later in the article, appear to be self-published; Google Scholar turns up one hit... basically, the only thing that we can actually verify is six US patents from the 1970s. There's also the problem of conflict of interest, judging from the way the article's signed at the bottom. I can't see this meeting biography guidelines without some sort of reliable sources - if anyone can turn them up, that'd be great. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Source: S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe, wife, student for 20 years" - I think we'll need coverage from independent sources Corpx 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless sourced. I admit I don't have the patience for it. DGG (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The activities listed should leave more of a Google trace, and the fact that the article is written by a relative is not a good sign. Espresso Addict 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and concerns addressed.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Practice managment software[edit]

Unnecessary list, nothing said about any of the software, sole source is just another list of software. superβεεcat 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wouldn't this be considered a copyvio or text dump? -WarthogDemon 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if it's quite a copyvio or text dump (the linked website has a lot more content, organized) but it's definitely nothing but a list without any context. - superβεεcat 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CSD#G12 - besides, it's just a list —Travis ^talk 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove !vote per nominator. —Travis ^talk 02:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Targeman 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - specific and notable type of software. Article only created yesterday. I take it upon myself to improve (give me 48 hours). Wl219 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as this is a huge issue in paralegal studies and Law office management today. I'd be glad to help out. It may need renaming and moving. Bearian 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVE NOMINATION After a discussion with Wl219, and recent edits to turn this article into a useful stub, I'm convinced that in its new form an article can be developed. - superβεεcat 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Balon[edit]

Unreferenced biography of a ten-year-old actor. Shirley Temple was notable at that age, but she was the exception. Shalom ^Hello 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Created by Annietour06, a probable COI, but edited by other users. In definite need of reliable third party sources, but may yet be notable.--Absurdist 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that the author name is very similar to the website listed in the article —Travis ^talk 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless World Championships of Performing Arts is considered an award important enough to confer notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for seperate article and I see no possibility or ability for merger. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, it seemed relatively easy to find and add references for her by doing a dogpile.com search. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral with comment: I'm kind of challenged on this one. Google turns up 393 hits for her name, which isn't much, but there's a number of media sources that give her a few lines for her performance. She's in a fairly key role on an internationally touring play, and gets pretty good, if short, reviews, such as this. I guess the question is whether a secondary role on an internationally touring presentation provides notability enough for an article. I can't decide either way, just yet. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have a few problems with the article. First off, it states she is ten years old (will she forever be 10 years old? It should just state her birthdate). Its badly written and should have more sources to prove that she is notable.Callelinea 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Callelinea's comments, but I don't think that any of them justifies deletion. There are certainly secondary sources that cover her. Are these numerous enough and do they focus on her enough? As User:Tony Fox says, it's a judgment call. My judgment falls on the side of keep. Sarcasticidealist 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral on the deletion, but badly written is not a reason for deletion.--Fabrictramp 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upstage Entertainment[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Google search for "Upstage Entertainment" + Toronto brings back 13 matches, many of them for Myspace profiles. Lugnuts 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 No assertion of notability. — Scientizzle 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with KFC restaurants[edit]

As much as I love Colonel Sanders I do not love this list. It is about as arbitrary as it gets. the_undertow ^talk 18:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not really much more to say than that. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even as a directory I don't see a purpose for it. What use does this provide me unless I am a world traveling person who is obsessed with KFC and needs a checklist? NobutoraTakeda 18:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [14][reply]

Are you? the_undertow ^talk 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish! NobutoraTakeda 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no need for a separate entry on this UntilMoraleImproves 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft at its finest. :) Shalom ^Hello 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally split it to de-cruft the KFC article anyway. Chris Cunningham 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic and bad precedent to keep it: we'll have these lists for every business. Carlossuarez46 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is something that is better handled by Kentucky Fried Chicken's website. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. It blows my mind that anyone would put so much work into something so pointless. However, I did learn from this fine example of listicruft that there's no KFC here in Belgium. Yay! :) --Targeman 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline content fork ... could better be served with a graph in the KFC article of how many countries are served by the Colonel. Blueboy 96 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless directory of info that can be integrated with the main KFC articleJForget 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a useless article, be it directory or not. Can be covered on main article in one sentence. --Haemo 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article about KFC or Yum Brands for that matter. It's a mistake to make this a separate article, but author has helped document the worldwide growth of the artery-plugging cuisine that originated in Corbin, Kentucky and helps make the world more obese. Note to author: I think you're gonna lose this one, with 13 straight delete votes... save hard work to hard drive, grin and bear it, then treat yourself to the buffet. Mandsford 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat and Merge - could be placed in the KFC article with less cruft and more usefulness. Perhaps a historical time line of when KFC restaurants opened in these countries would be better? Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the opinions listed above stating that there is no need for a separate article. However, take into consideration that this list could easily be integrated into the main KFC article. There are other fast-food related articles at Wikipedia where the countries with locations are listed. At the very least, that info should remain. Toni S. 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Several people are still suggesting a re-merge. if it were worth bloating up the KFC article with listcruft it wouldn't have been split in the first place. All that the main article needs is a link to a reputable external source with a list of countries. Chris Cunningham 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Merging has a way of bloating the article, which then breaks off into its own, and ends up back here. It's sort of a perpetual thing. As Dennis said, the KFC website provides this information. the_undertow^talk 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the closest reputable source, KFC.com, is not as detailed as this list since that site's Global section is missing location information for the entire Middle East as well as portions of Latin/South America. Official KFC Global Location listings Toni S. 09:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's also Original Research then?? —gorgan_almighty 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep maybe merge. Non-directory style information. --W.marsh 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just about every country with a few exceptions (the countries which the US has no diplomatic relations with) would be on the list. At best, it should be moved to List of countries that have diplomatic relations with the United States--Sefringle^Talk 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? --Targeman 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I thought it was just me ;) the_undertow ^talk 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete please. It's snowing outside. Bearian 22:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makesilltoreadcruft. Wasted Time R 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless listcruft. —gorgan_almighty 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally useless listcruft. Let it fry. Burntsauce 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj shortround[edit]

This article fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC due to no support of notability from reliable third-party sources. Absurdist 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely OR. the_undertow ^talk 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promoting WP:COI —Travis ^talk 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Messy, unsourced and likely some sort of advert.--JForget 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Development World Class Cities Rankings[edit]

This seems to be only edited by the author and does not seem to have any relevance or claim to notability Joedoedoe 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP is not a motivational seminar. This is written in first-person, is flowery, and is not an encyclopedia article. It has no purpose and has no references. I wish I could get back the 4 minutes it took me to read this article. the_undertow ^talk 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotion and WP:COI —Travis ^talk 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. I wonder if it has been copied & pasted and so is a copyvio too. --Malcolmxl5 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What IS this?!!! You, too, can build a world class community! Lose weight now, ask me how. Mandsford 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's a soap box. Bearian 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Appeal[edit]

non-notable "hidden" track from the album ANThology. Lars T. 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reason to keep a song article that contains no more information than is already communicated by the track listing on the album's page. Propaniac 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I don't even see a reason to have an album page. If the album needs mentioning it can be made on the artist's page. NobutoraTakeda 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [15][reply]
Speedy delete - no worth to article, as everything about it exists on the album page. Guroadrunner 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, zero evidence of notability. Burntsauce 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimental value[edit]

Dictionary definition that fails WP:NOT; should be deleted or transwikied to Wiktionary. I don't see any reliable sources discussing the phrase (other than as a definition). Charlene 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Useight 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary as per Useight Harlowraman 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per above, although I'm kind of surprised that there apparently aren't any sources of discussion. Propaniac 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word and discussing it are different things. WP:NOTE requires that there be non-trivial discussions about the phrase as a phrase, since this article is about the phrase. --Charlene 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm surprised that there are no non-trivial sources about the phrase. I'm not doubting your investigation, just commenting that I would have thought there'd be an actual WP article on the phrase. Propaniac 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not transwiki. The term "sentimental value" does not merit a separate entry in two large paper dictionaries that I just checked. Shalom ^Hello 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't delete this article, it has so many memories... ~ Infrangible 01:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Wl219 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, merge and redirect to Economic appraisal. Wl219 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary as per above. (But I love the remark by ~ Infrangible!)--Fabrictramp 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary. Darrenhusted 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Otto[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO for notability, and has POV issues. Absurdist 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously advertising and/or vanity article. Get rid of it. Jmlk 1 7 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO and read like a advert. I would not be suprised if was a conflict of interest as well. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not established. Also skating awfully close to WP:BOLLOCKS. --Charlene 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:COI - author username is same as his website (note letter from the editor) —Travis ^talk 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, there are legitimate concerns over original research, the connectedness of various Igors to one another in the article's present form and sourcing. This may be worth revisiting if such problems are not addressed in a reasonable period of time.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor (fictional character)[edit]

Much as I used to enjoy this article, it is a full-blown, serious original reseacrh `'Míkka 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but ruthlessly cleanup. Igor is such a classic character in so many formats that a well referenced article should be and could be written. Davewild 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "should be and could be written" is a good idea, but after this one deleted and encyclopedic sources of general research for this alleged stock character found. `'Míkka 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of strong keeps this is a stock character /set piece in many films etc and needs to be here. Some of us just need to clean up the article. I will have a go, take a look in a bit:)Merkinsmum 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge of the OR and the list of examples. An examination of the stock character is suitably encyclopedic and references exist for it. A list of every hunchback named Igor or some variation of it is not. Otto4711 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thie problem is that if you delete all hunchbacks, what remains is an unreferenced OR. What we need is a reference which discusses Igor as stock character. All references are for individual characters, and the current artciel is a synthesis, whcih is disallowed in wikipedia. `'Míkka 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True lol. I've added some references, but all it really needs is severe pruning as the listing of Igors is quite obsessive- someone obviously loves an Igor to write all this.:)Merkinsmum 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pruned a bit.:)Merkinsmum 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup for now. It seems likely that an article can be written about this topic - but if it is not improved with sources in a reasonable amount of time consider re-nominating. As it stands it is almost completely OR. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is no way to clarify which Igor, or if all the Igors are the same. It is inherently OR. Having the same name does not denote that the character is the same. If you want to have a page on a specific Igor, then that is fine. However, a page devoteed to the use of the name Igor in fiction is OR. NobutoraTakeda 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [16][reply]
Keep, it should be possible to source a complete article on this widely-recognized stock character (not always named Igor). --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is not always named "Igor" then the article is speculation from the very beginning. Someone just decided to write about "Igor" and started twisting and turning facts as they suit their nice Igorology. `'Míkka 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the connection between the same things with different names is made by a reliable source such as a film critic (I've heard they exist), then we are not creating "Igorology" although that's a nice band name. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs substantial attention; I think the subject is noteworthy and has been the subject of numerous WP:RSes, but the article is not in the best of shape - poor quality and excess WP:OR is not reason to delete, it's a reason to be WP:BOLD and improve it. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual Igors are notworthy. I haven't seen a reliable source that says that each of the Igors are connected in anyway. Should we also add every non-hunchback character named Igor? Because they count under the generic "fictional character".

Redirect to Son of Frankenstein where there was first a character of this description, a hunchback lab assistant to a mad scientist, with this name (although spelled "Ygor"). It is original research to claim that any assistant to a monster or mad scientist, even with a different name, even without a hunchback, is an instance of an "Igor." Wikipedia is not for loosely connected pieces of information that an editor thinks are related. Edison 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written article on a stock character. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the third party veriable source that he is a stock character or that all the Igor's are related? NobutoraTakeda 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Comments from banned user NobutoraTakeda discounted.) Walton^One 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror[edit]

This page is orphaned, lacks third party sources, lacks any information on the page, and could be mentioned as a link or evidence on a page about the War or Terror instead of having its own page stub. There is no evidence of its importance beyond being a part of topics that already have pages devoteed to them. NobutoraTakeda 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to War on terrorism#External links, then delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've performed some cleanup and sourcing. The document gets attention every time it's revised even slightly, although there is some distance between this E Ring paperwork and what the boots on the ground are actually doing at any given moment. --20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But does the document warrant anything on its own? It talks about notable items, but so does every email the President writes, or every note that clerks of the SC write. The merge to War on Terrorism seems far better than a keep, because at least it could be put to use as a source for the page on what the US is planning. NobutoraTakeda 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Topic A is the obvious parent of Topic B does not mean that Topic B must be merged. The issue is whether Topic B is itself notable. The examples you cite are important but not notable, because they do not receive the attention that this document does/did -- among them a 5000-ish word piece in U.S. News & World Report. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not recieve a 5,000 word piece. The information collected in the document does and that information is the topic of the War on Terror, not the actual document. The document is itself a synthesis of other sources. The document is not notable. The information refered to, i.e. aspects of the War on Terror are. NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the strategic plan for the war on terror is the subject of the article. A strategic plan which took 18 months to write involving hundreds of stakeholders in and out of the Pentagon. A strategic plan which is notable because it has received coverage specific to itself. Your logic here escapes me. If the document is not notable, why are people writing about it in major publications? --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the book itself is frequently used as a source, and referred to as authoritative, it is notable. Many of the topics it talks about will be also, bu tthat is separate. DGG (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being used as a source does not make it notable enough to have its own page. NobutoraTakeda 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic? When does Brittanica ever have "here is the whole document" as anything on it? There is no history of the document. No background to the document. And any of that is not notable. NobutoraTakeda 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may want to make yourself aware of the current state of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, how's that working for ya? [17] ~ Infrangible 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the War on Terror. There doesn't need to be a second page on the War on Terror report that merely summarizes information that belongs on the War on Terror. Having them list it as a source of information does not make it notable. Sources must talk about the content on a critical or analytic level, not the material in the topic. This is the same as any book page and should be judged on that criteria. NobutoraTakeda 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are trying to conflate things. The report on the War on Terror is not the same thing as the War on Terror itself. They are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 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. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbrook Elementary School[edit]

NN Elementary school, little content Rackabello 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources or evidence of notability - just because a school exists does not mean that it's notable! Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to weak keep - sources have been added. However, the article provides little content about the school, and the Blue Ribbon honor is not very unique. Ali ^(t)_(c) 02:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability Corpx 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - A Blue Ribbon school, the highest award a school can get in the US, together with other multiple sources means it easily crosses the WP:N threshold. TerriersFan 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was almost 10 years ago. Even then, I don't such an award should confer notability upon an elementary school Corpx 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The award does not confer notability upon an elementary school; only WP:RS can confer notability upon an elementary school. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If elementary schools are eligible to receive it, then there is no reason to say it should count for middle schools and high schools but not elementary schools as far as wiki is concerned. Postcard Cathy 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn school that asserts no basis for warranting encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, combined with ample reliable and verifiable sources, demonstrates notability by any interpretation of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. While most elementary schools will be unable to claim notability or provide sources to support a claim, this article -- and this school -- clearly surpasses the qualifications of notability. As notability is not temporary per WP:N, and it doesn't disappear or fade away, the fact that one of the awards was received ten years ago is utterly irrelevant. The claim that this article "asserts no basis for warranting encyclopedic treatment" is utterly false and is a mere restatement of the baseless claim that "no schools are notable". Alansohn 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beavercreek City School District--JForget 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete the highest honor the federal govt gives, and a rather meaningless one at that. Awarded for a single year. It goes to a different set of schools every year, with only a few repeats [18] eventually, like championships once in a single sport, most schools will get it. The awards of likewise insignificant. Most elementary schools are probably non notable no matter how hard the editors try. DGG (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry but this fundamentally misrepresents the award. What is the basis for saying it is meaningless? The federal government doesn't think so nor do educationalists. The few repeats are a function of the difficulty in gaining the award. With under 300 awards per year out of 133,000 or so schools it will remain exclusive for many years to come. Agreed that most elementary schools are probably non notable - but this one plainly is. TerriersFan 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of these awards that go around. I know here in Texas, they confer titles of "commended" or "distinguished" or whatever else based on standardized test scores + some other minor factors. These ratings change every year due to the results. It's only good for hanging a banner outside the school and that's it. The Blue ribbon is given to "public and private K-12 schools that are either academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement." I think that's a pretty loose criteria for inclusion. If this school was on the blue ribbon list for a number of years, then maybe it indicates notability, but just 1 appearance 10 years ago? Corpx 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas have their own Blue Ribbon awards which are plainly less notable than the federal ones. There are not plenty of these to go around - as I say above less than 300 per year out of 133,000 schools - and the criteria you mention are just to get considered not to be awarded. Also, the article now has the multiple sources to meet WP:N independently of the award. TerriersFan 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on TerriersFan's responses, most of the issues raised are answered rather clearly in the Blue Ribbon Schools Program article. About 300 of the 133,000 eligible schools in the United States are cited per year, a little over 2/10's of one percent of eligible schools. In the 25 years since its inception in 1982, 5,200 different schools have been recognized, less than 4% of all eligible schools in the United States. At this pace, it would take 600 years or more for all schools to be recognized, assuming no duplicates. Schools cannot apply for an award with five years of previous recognition, making it rather difficult to get a streak going. An even cursory overview will demonstrate that the national program is far more selective than any of the state recognition programs. Most importantly, this award, and other recognition received by the school, is documented and supported by reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. As notability is not temporary, the receipt of the award ten years ago, 25 years ago, or some other comparable award received 100 years ago would all be equally as notable as any award received today. Alansohn 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for qualification under this award is extremely weak (in my opinion). A self-evaluation and a plan for the future, that's it? No objective criteria? I'll be satisfied of notability if a school has won more than one blue ribbon Corpx 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is quite right; the Blue Ribbon thing is more guff that, like winning a football championship, is hardly grounds for establishing encyclopedic notability. When did the notability guidelines become simply a question of being "documented and supported by reliable and verifiable sources?" Document and verify all you wish, but for many editors, citing this award as grounds for retention is a real stretch. Eusebeus 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:N became the notability standard. TerriersFan 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is not purpose for these types of articles; existence does not equate to needing or having an article about each and every school in the world. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is "these types of articles"? I fully agree with your last point but what is the relevance to this particular school? Bridgeplayer 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any award given to 300 schools a year isn't exclusive enough to make a school notable by itself. •:• Will Beback •:• 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verification of notable events, awards, alumni or other history. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nine references, most of which are providing "verification of notable events, awards, alumni or other history". Are we reading the same article? Alansohn 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep view - I gather that for notability per WP:N you need multiple sources which this page has. It seems to me that insufficient attention has been given to the peace award - any award given to just 1 school in a state is notable. I also don't see the criticism of the Blue Ribbon; some sort of standard to keep/delete school articles is needed and this seems as good as any. Bridgeplayer 23:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep While Blue Ribbon Schools are not as selective as, say Ivy League admissions, they do indicate the school has more than adequately met minimal standards and that shows leadership on the part of administration and an effective teaching staff. There are too many schools out there now a days that can not say the same. Postcard Cathy 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and TerriersFan. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N. Noroton 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Blue Ribbon satisfying WP:N, and let's find a better one to argue about. -- But|seriously|folks 18:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:RS satisfying WP:N. The Blue Ribbon satisfies WP:CSD#A7 as would notable events, awards, alumni or other history if needed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:CSD apply here? Corpx 07:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Malek[edit]

No demonstrated notability by reliable independent sources as all the links are related to him or for promotion purposes as he is an author. A google search doesn't turn up any indepedent sources, mainly trivial listings selling his book or his own articles. This was a contested prod and the article was deleted previously under CSD for no assertion of notability. The author of the article also probably has a conflict of interest with the subject as per this note on my talk page: [19]. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I simply can't find anything. Anyway, COI doesn't matter, but there just doesn't seem to be anything for somebody who's been so talked about, supposedly, according to our article. I'm concerned also that the only returned result out of only 12 for "Ben Malek" and Domino is our article--maybe it's a fake article. KP Botany 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if you do the second search using his correct last name, does your concern go away? Malibailey

Who is this article about, Ben Malek or Ben Malekzadeh? If it's about Ben Malek, I'll search for Ben Malek, and that's the article whose deletion we are discussing. Create an article on Ben Malekzadeh if that's who we're discussing, and I will look. KP Botany 04:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same person. He used to go by Malekzadeh and has started to go by Malek the last few years when I saw him speak I will note the article as such if it makes you happy --Malibailey 05:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still delete. There's just nothing there about him. If he had all these book deals and stuff, I'd find something besides blogs about him. Heck, I'm mentioned on more prestigious blogs and in more prestigious newspapers than he is, and there is no article about me on Wikipedia. I'm generally an inclusionist, you wouldn't believe the people I've kept and the lengths I've gone to, but Malek needs more available sources about him for this article to be kept. If he's really as notable as you say he is, these sources will be forthcoming, and I suggest you go to the WP:MOS and prepare to write that article. But, there's nothing about him right now. Even those talking about him can't deliver more than sound bites. KP Botany 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability and coi —Travis ^talk 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - New information presented requires me to change my opinion. —Travis ^talk 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do a search for "Ben Malekzadeh" and you will see a 1460 hits. How does this promote him in any way? The links are to the Library of Congress, which does not sell books. If you click on any link that is included, you will see. The 3 magazines mentioned are all print magazine that were formerly published by Penton Media, which is a very large publisher. One of the books was published by McGraw-Hill which is not a small publisher. Take a look at people listed under category computer specialist. Most of them just say the person works for Microsoft.. Is that Notable? This person was a columnist for a technical magazine for over 6 years, has authored 2 books, contributed to a dozen more books, and been known as an expert in his field. What does it take to be notable? People in his field recognize his name. Do another search and you will see, but this time use his pen name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malibailey (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 July 2007}}

Keep I posted the article with "malekzadeh" in parenthesis. He is a legitimate author. 199.20.54.1 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 199.20.54.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate, yes. But notable? Besides, it still appears to violate WP:COI. —Travis ^talk 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he's real; I've heard of him and we may well know at least one person in common but even as a published author he's just another guy who wrote a how-to book or two. We're not a directory of published authors, only of notable ones. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, What does it take for someone to be considered notable? I would think someone who excels in their field of study or career, and who has made contributions to that field should be considered notable. I don't know who you know that knows him or not, but I am a fan of his writing, reading his books and columns for over 6 years has helped me and many of my collegues in their careers. He's not a blogger, he's not someone that has written things for websites, but someone that actually wrote books that were published by major publishers, spoke at conferences that regarded him as an expert, and even some of the articles he wrote were notable enough to be translated and re-published into Spanish, Italian and French. If you think it is that easy to get a book contract from companies like McGraw-Hill, I think you should all try and see how far you get. I disagree with the comment of "he's just another guy who wrote a how-to book or two. Even if that is all that he did, does he have to cure cancer to be considered notable? There are tons of people that have done less and you guys aren't going through nominating them for deletion... Malibailey

Comment, All of you citing COI, would any of you care to say under what grounds it is COI? It is not financial, self-promotion, autobiography, etc... So state your caseMalibailey

You stopped reading wp:coi too soon. The next topic is "Close relationships." The author, Khansajed claims that Malek was a mentor of his. I think that fits the definition of close relationship. —Travis ^talk 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that, but I wouldn't consider what I said to be a COI. I fixed the article,I changed the links away from Amazon, and added my own 2 cents. So even if he did write it originally, I stepped in and added what I thought would take and COI away from it. Malibailey

Comment. Just as a note, since this has come up a lot, COI is not a deletion criterion, but it is usually worth noting, especially in cases of disputed notability (in general, people tend to think those that have affected them personally are more significant than would otherwise be the case). The deletion nom is on the basis of notability and lack of reliable indepedent sources for that notability. COI is just a side note. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading the article and Cquan's comment, I am retracting my COI complaint. Thanks for the clarification. —Travis ^talk 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Cquan... Thanks for being fair on the COI, but I still want to know your definition of notable, because I think he is. Have you done a search on "Ben Malekzadeh" ? Malibailey

I did, as I said in the nomination. I have yet to see one from an independent reliable source that does not qualify as trivial. This includes biography pages from places that sell his books. Feel free to present sources here to, as making the claim of notability properly sourced will fix this whole situation. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thorough search, and as you have seen, it is very hard to find things any time someone writes a few books. There are too many people trying to capitalize by having links to the books, and therefore the searches get diluted. The only independent articles I found on him make him notable for charity work that he had done (Big Ben Foundation- 10 years ago) and when he worked for the Philadelphia Eagles from the archives at morningcall.com

However, I do see that notability does talk about name recognition, as he does have name recognition for people like me and my peers in his field of work, and he is also widely cited by his peers- per wiki criteria:

Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. - He fits into this category The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

Many of his peers have cited him in their blogs all over the world. They have taken pieces of his work and writing and cited it within their blogs or websites. As you can see, they are located throughout the world.

Cited in a book written by one of his peers

Cited in a Lotus/IBM Forum

Japan

Russia

Israel

You can also look at some of the cached pages that are linked here:

zoom info

There is also abook review from secondary sources (outside of the ones on the sites that sell it)

collective body of work-independent book His Best of Ask Ben book is a collection of his writings for over 6 years that was compiled and re-published.

internationally significant libraries. Library of Congress? Is that an Internationally significant Library?

Anyway, I have spent way too much time on this already. Cquan- if you don't want to think someone is notable, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. There aren't enough people going through this page to give their comments- seems like the same few people. If you are not in this field of work, you would not recognize him, and as many books or articles that he may have written isn't going to convince you. There are not lots of articles out there about his work, other than the ones that point out his publications, which is why he is notable- although you disagree. As I mentioned earlier, it is not that easy to get multiple book deals, and I know he has made huge contributions to his field. Not sure if you know him and have a personal vendetta against him or what, but if all these citations above- all from independent sources from different countries that cite his work doesn't convince you, I don't think anything else will. --Malibailey 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, the point is, you don't have to convince me...you have to convince enough for a consensus, for which, at the moment, I would not be part of due to lack of convincing evidence. This guy sounds like he has limited notability within a certain technical community, but frankly this is all way too labored. The point is that Wikipedia is not supposed to help establish notability or recognition of people that aren't already notable or worthy of recognition. If it were otherwise, it would amount to advertising and promotion, no matter how you word it. I admire the effort, but to me it just demonstrates that this guy lacks the notability you're trying to establish. I mean, has he even won an award for anything? Or was his book a best seller? Those would easily establish notability. Oh yeah, and I hardly consider the Library of Congress a good way to establish notability since they try to get copies of EVERYTHING. Sorry, but it shouldn't be this difficult, which makes me think the article shouldn't be here. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if he has won any awards, I did not find any references to any. I know at one point, his McGraw-Hill book was on the top 100 best seller list at Amazon, but I did not want to get back to promoting books, which he probably made money from- then you would cry promotion. I know I pre-ordered the book almost 1 year before it was published. I'm not trying to establish his notability- he already has that. I was trying to establish his notability to you, since your background is not in computers or Lotus Notes, and therefore you would not know him. Up until recently, many people didn't know who David Beckham was, and many Americans still don't know him, because they just don't follow or play soccer... doesn't make him any less notable since he is the most popular athlete in the world. I agree, Ben Malek is not a notable person to an average person- yes, you are an average person. But as I mentioned, to someone in his field, he is. Cquan, Lotus Notes has nothing to do with Biotechnology, or Chemical Engineering, and therefore I wouldn't expect you to know him or find him notable, as it is not an area of your interest.. But makes me wonder why you are so interested and involved in this article. You have nominated it twice for deletion, once speedy, while thousands of other articles are getting published. You should get involved in articles you know something about and keep your hands off of areas outside of your expertise. Looking at your contributions, you are really stuck on this one... You have been focused on tissue engineering, biotechnolgy, patent law, University of Rochester and Ben Malek? Doesn't that seem strange? --Malibailey 04:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the advice (which I've heard repeatedly from others). Unfortunately, this is a general encyclopedia, not a Lotus Notes/Computer encyclopedia. IMHO, you should be trying to contribute articles with the general audience in mind. Yes, I certainly am an average reader in this subject, which is why I'm sceptical. Of course I will contribute more frequently and (hopefully) authoritatively in subjects I know a lot about, but that hardly means I should "keep my hands off" other subjects. This is a freely editable project and opinions, even non-expert/in the field ones are valid. If you think only experts should contribute to articles, then you've missed the point of Wikipedia. And obviously, I'm not the only one who is skeptical about this article...perhaps a little vocal, but not alone...since yes, I nominated for deletion (i.e. expressed a concern), but I didn't delete it...for the speedy, feel free to pester User:Riana about that. If the consensus here says it stays, then it stays...and will probably shrug off any potential future concerns because of it. That's the point of these community discussions. Now, I don't believe in just voicing an opinion with no reasoning behind it, so as soon as I see sources for notability that satisfy WP:NOTE, then I'll be all for keeping the article, but not before. Sorry. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are correct and sorry, I guess your input still means something, although if I don't find biotechnology that interesting (which I don't), I wouldn't start questioning everything in articles about it. The reason I pointed it out is that it seems you are really out to make sure this article goes away, no matter what evidence is presented. It's been going back and forth. I thought I already showed you tons of sources for notability that satisfy WP:BIO Read the guidelines under the creative professionals section which I cited above. It does state some things that would make the person notable, and even if the Library of Congress may not be a valid argument on my part, how about the other points I raised, including the citation from his peers in 8 different countries? If he was not notable, would people all over the world be reading his writings and copying parts of his articles to their website? And that is just what I was able to find by googling his name, which isn't the most complete research. It is all relative to his work.. Anyway, I don't think I am going to win you over. I think it is all part of good healthy discussion and if the consensus doesn't find it worthy, so be it, but I have found many more less worthy people listed that haven't done as much.. --Malibailey 05:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow you guys have been up all night! So have we reached a consensus here? I still strongly feel that Ben Malek should stay, who are we to judge or who is notable or not? His wiki has been modified not to promote his book or endorse him in anyway. Let us just move onto another subject area. Khansajed 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to cquan This is directly from the consensus page guidelines:

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors must, in almost all situations, assume good faith and must always remain civil.

Stop being so stubborn. Consider other people's view points. Not sure if you have something against the subject or the original author as I see you have been involved in both of his contributions, but I don't think you are being reasonable. I already posted information about how his notability satisfies WP:BIO and maybe your silence since then means agreement or not?

Although I don't agree with User:Khansajed and some of the edits he had made, I did try to correct the situation by editing the article, I spent all this time ranting back and forth with you. User:TravisTX is an example of how to be a reasonable editor, as when he did see some supporting evidence (that COI wasn't ground for deletion), he assumed good faith.

There are some fields that get more press coverage than others. If he had a small role in a tv show, he would have a lot more notability according to you, because the entertainment industry gets more coverage. You even just reviewed Mona Scott and didn't think there was anything wrong with that. Who is she? Manager of a record company? Is this a directory of record company managers? Is she one of the top record company managers out there? Has she written books about record company management? Do a search for "mona scott" violator or "mona scott" records and you will get around 600-800 hits and most of them are from places that sell her records. Do the same for "Ben Malekzadeh" Lotus Notes and you get more than double that and you will see people quoting him and his work.--Malibailey 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have to defend my decisions (especially in this case...if you thought she wasn't notable, you could have tagged for CSD just like anyone else). I looked briefly and saw plenty of evidence for notability on Mona Scott...but, why not? I just added a couple refs to the article in support of notability and I'll leave it to others who know more about her to expand the article. Now, back to this article...I think if all those sources you provided weren't blogs or forums, I would say fine and good, but blogs and forums aren't generally accepted as reliable sources per WP:V. I tried a citation search and other than the one you gave above, I can't find examples of him being cited outside a blog (one example is hardly "widely cited"). I think you may be right that I am being a little stubborn on this...I'm not seeing that clear and eyepopping demonstration of notability, but I guess there are lots of little things supporting it...so for now I think I'm sticking to Weak Delete due to limited niche notability without sufficient sources. It's unfortunate that some areas get less coverage, but that's just the state of the world. Still, it wouldn't be much to ask for notability's sake for one article to be written about him in some at least semi-mainstream computing magazine. Like I said, I'm obviously very vocal about this, but I'm hardly the only person available to form the consensus, so my stubborness aside, if the subject is truely notable, one little dissentor like me shouldn't hurt anything. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Elementary School[edit]

NN Elementary School, very little content Rackabello 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Beavercreek City School District, and likewise for other elementary schools in the same district. Shalom ^Hello 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing really to merge here. NN school. Delete + Redirect Corpx 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnoticeable school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs)
Merge and redirect to Beavercreek City School District as a perfectly valid search term. Burntsauce 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 04:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymes Thorp[edit]

Conflict of interest, and non-notable You-Tuber. De facto advertising because Wikipedia article implies notability.--Absurdist 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Absurdist 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom; unref'd article; blatant conflict of interest by Thorpfilms (talk · contribs). Shalom ^Hello 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The COI results in an article that is entirely original research. Vanity...tsk..tsk. the_undertow ^talk 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another NN youtube "celeb" Corpx 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not backed up by references; fails WP:ATT. --Charlene 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy db-bio. That was my first tag on the article, and I still think it is appropriate for all the reasons cited. Being recognized on the street is not sufficient notability even if true, but it is only self-reported by the conflicted subject of the article. Hu 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy delete is for articles that do not even attempt to assert notability. The following is an assertion (however weak) of notability and, if true, provides at least one source from which it might be possible to craft a decent article on this subject:
"Thorp's fame has grown outside the YouTube community thanks to the recognition he has recieved from various television and magazine media. The first publication to print articles about "Jaymes Thorp" was Romsey Advertiser.[citation needed] On April 19th, 2007, they published an article about Jaymes Thorp and his videos."
(emphasis mine). Admitedly, this is not phrased as a properly cited source, is only one published incident and not the "multiple non-trivial" that the notability guidelines require, and, given the limited info given at this point in time is not verifiable; but it's a starting point. Let's wait a few days, tell the article creator what's wrong with his article, and give him or her a chance to remedy the situation. 206.246.160.29 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not. Let's not belabor the obvious. The user has a conflict of interest and has been actively editing the article, for no substantive improvement of content other than cosmetic modifications and self-assertions with no sources, despite guidance and warnings. For example, the creator removed the speedy deletion tag, despite clear instructions in the tag not to do so. Then the creator was warned, but went ahead and a little later removed the tag again. I predict the outcome will be deletion. However, I have no problem letting time take its course for those who insist on form over substance. I respect the mechanisms even when I think the case is so obvious that the mechanisms are a waste of everyone's time involved, including the article writer, and even when the creator doesn't respect process. Hu 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That reference was added after db-bio tag, which may save it from speedy deletion. The reference, however, does not add up to substantial coverage of the subject.--Absurdist 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI, OR, advertising, notability...should I continue? —Travis ^talk 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Walton^One 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Bush[edit]

Procedural listing - was prod, but seemed to me to warrant an AfD. Original nomination was: "No reliable sources (all citations are from genealogy websites), and subject doesn't seem to be particularly notable in and of himself. It's nice that his great-great-great whatever grew up to be president, but we already have an article about him. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)" Orderinchaos 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his family may be notable but he is not. Notability doesn't really rub off or pass through DNA. NobutoraTakeda 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [20][reply]
Delete, being the (somewhat distant) ancestor of a notable person doesn't make one notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my reasoning behind the PROD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not just the Bush family that makes him notable, its also the Fairbanks family. His mother grew up in the oldest house in the United States. --Briancua 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that merits him a minor mention on a page devoteed to the Fairbanks, not his own. NobutoraTakeda 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless he's been written about by independent non-trivial third parties, he's not notable either as a Bush or as a Fairbanks ancestor. Growing up in a notable house does not make one notable in the least. --Charlene 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableUntilMoraleImproves 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bush family. Only notability is that he's a member of a political family. Blueboy 96 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep ~~Keep~~ "the earliest confirmed direct ancestor of the Bush political family." I think for figures of this period reliable genealogical sources may be appropriate DGG (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the genealogical sources cited in the article meet WP:RS. This is particularly problematic, given that the article also includes an offensive allegation regarding his parentage. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to very weak keep on the grounds of the weak sourcing. But conjectures about historical people's legitimacy are not covered by BLP; it's not his parentage. DGG (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Callelinea 01:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cousins, uncles, sisters, brothers, the friends of a friend of notble people does not equate to notability. It is not a process of osmosis for these individuals. If kept Wikipedia evolves into an information source of the mundane.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG plus the attribution requirements are met. Burntsauce 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Reality Check (album). — Scientizzle 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way I Be Leanin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Way I Be Leanin'

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of this single. Otto4711 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article should just remain tagged as unreferenced until one is provided. No need for it to be deleted. Numerous google hits suggests that the single is notable and refs should not be hard to find.Gungadin 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that counting google hits is not an acceptable method of determining the notability of a subject. Many of the google hits are for such things as download sites, lyrics databases, sites to view the video and the like and do not constitute reliable sources to establish the song's notability. Otto4711 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true, and just goes to show that the nominator did not do his reasearch before nominating. Online stores sell the single, there are numerous reviews and magazine interviews featuring the artist. All verifiable sources that could be used. The article needs extending and it should be sourced, but there is no need for it to be deleted.Gungadin 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should keep your opinions about my researching to yourself if you're going to fail at doing your own. Had you taken a moment to read the nomination all the way to the end to get to the link to Wikipedia:Notability, you would find that it states in relevant part that the topic must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. "Significant coverage" means that the sources must be substantially about the subject, not simply mention it. "Reliable sources" means that the source has editorial integrity. Customer reviews on download sites are not reliable sources. Interviews with the musician, unless they are substantially about this specific single, do not establish notability. Otto4711 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lame attempt to discredit my findings. The references I mention provide significant coverage. Sorry if it hampers your lust for deletion.Gungadin 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think I didn't run the same Google search you did before nominating the article? You're the one claiming that reliable sources are thick like grapes on the vine, yet you have not added those references to the article or even posted specific links to them here. So please, enlighten us. Link the sources. Otto4711 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lets talk about the article. Both you guys are experienced editors. DGG (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the article. I'm noting that there do not appear to be any reliable sources to support the existence of the article and asking the person who says otherwise to provide those sources. Otto4711 04:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a single by a notable musician; retain the {{unreferenced}} tag. InnocuousPseudonym 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the policy or guideline that states that any single is automatically notable just because it was released by a notable artist. Otto4711 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC#Songs isn't officially policy, but it states "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a single by a notable artist. Gareth E Kegg 12:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Pan Dan 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reality Check (album) in agreement with Hammer's quote. Multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources are needed to write a neutral article. If such sources emerge, the redirect can be undone. The sources I find (like [21]) are about the album, mentioning the song trivially, and they would support an article about the album, not the song. Pan Dan 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pan Dan. ZZ 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hammer's quote and Pan Dan. I'm unconvinced this single passes WP:N. This is constantly an issue with music groups; fans make individual articles for each track, which are not notable, except as part of the album as a whole. - superβεεcat 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bossman[edit]

Autobiography about a radio presenter that lacks evidence of notability. Prod removed without comment by creator/subject. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources or clear notability established, delete per WP:BIO. Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability established Corpx 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only significant mention he has on the internet seems to be the news that he is appearing on a Punjab Radio program. Just one not so trivial source isn't enough to satisfy WP:BIO. However, I noticed mentions about a Bossman band, maybe it can be redirected to that article instead.--Kylohk 08:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One piece pirates dream[edit]

article about a future game, with no sources, and the creator, who is one of the only editors of it, has removed much of the content, stating them spoilers, apparently at the owners request Jac16888 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for this project. Propaniac 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has clearly not been established, and Wikipedia's not the place for a game creator to inform people of an upcoming game. Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The game creator only removed information. Lars T. 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unverifiable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 any sourced content to W. B. Yeats or to the articles about the individual works. Since no content is currently sourced inline, I am redirecting the article to W. B. Yeats. Any mergers can take place from the history once sources are supplied. Sandstein 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. B. Yeats in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another unsourced laundry list/garbage dump of a trivia repository that seeks to capture every time a line from Yeats is quoted anywhere. The listed items tell us nothing about Yeats, his poetry, the items from which the fiction is drawn, how he supposedly served as an "inspiration" (as opposed to, say, the line just sounded cool) for the listed items, how the listed items relate to each other or the world around us. Otto4711 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment a larger scale razzia on Category:In popular culture may be necessary. I mean, seriously, Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, Godzilla in popular culture, Pop culture influenced by Sesame Street, these really belong in a Category:Popular culture in popular culture. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any of these items that are properly referenced by verifiable sources as being allusions to his work to the article for the specific work (I don't think there are any properly referenced items, but maybe I missed a few). Then redirect. If no merges are appropriate, then delete. Propaniac 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I like Yeats a lot but this seems more like trivia. If any of the information was needed it could be listed on their individual pages. NobutoraTakeda 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [22][reply]
Merge relevant items per Propaniac and delete the bulk. A popular culture article that isn't mainly meaningless passing references in Family Guy, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, etc., etc., is a thing of wonder and sight to behold, but most of these are not references to Yeats; they're references to specific writings of Yeats. Notable items should be moved to the article on the writing in question (and not the "in popular culture" article either, but the article on the work itself) or to the article on Yeats. Simple mentions of Yeats or his works are not generally notable and should be deleted. --Charlene 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The usual for such articles - merge the good, delete the bad. Shalom ^Hello 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the page a weeks back in order to spin it you from the main Yeats article which is currently under FAR. Its presence was a primary for reason calling the review.[23] I don't care if you delete it, but I feel very strongly against any level of reinsertion or any form of merger. So much informed and considered analysis has been writted about Yeats in the last 100 years that it was tough enough not to let the article grow to level above that allowed by the FA criteria. There's better stuff out there to include. Ceoil 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's important and sourced, delete the rest, per others above. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is important and none of it is sourced. It's all incidental and of trivial inportance to the partent article. Ceoil 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge per above, otherwise delete the rest since it is as plenty of other IPC articles unsourced and full of trivia.--JForget 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the non-trivia, and delete the rest. --Haemo 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Merge, it was removed from the main article because it is unencylopedic content. It should not be merged back to the main article, as the main article is being reworked to retain featured status. I don't care if it's deleted or kept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be rude, but every single merge vote has specified to merge only the content that is encyclopedic, and properly referenced, if such content exists. I don't know why multiple people have responded as if anyone is suggesting to just copy and paste the whole mess back into the original article. Propaniac 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats fair enough Propaniac, not really sure how this process works, so forgive the noob. Ceoil 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - the point remains, Propaniac, that these "in popular culture" articles are created in order to keep the main articles clean. Merging back is a bad idea, this material is only even here because it was unwanted at the main article. Note the entire category Category:Norse mythology in popular culture: this was created because game designers etc. will insist on naming random characters after Norse mythology, and the kids playing these games will insist on adding that to Wikipedia. The "in popular culture" categories serve the important function of discharging that without a lot of fuss. If you want to be strict about that, you will spend your days on AfD getting rid of them all. I don't see the point in that. If people want a repository for that sort of cruft, let them have it in list-like articles out of harm's way. I am not going to vote "keep", but I do think that a deletion campaign against these "in popular culture" articles is an ill-advised waste of time. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there are substantial and verifiable sources that one notable piece of art is significantly influenced by another notable piece of art, I think that information does belong in one or both of the articles for those pieces of art. None of the items on this particular list seem to be sourced in any way, and so it should be deleted. Information either meets Wikipedia's standards or it doesn't, and if it does not, then moving it somewhere else may improve the article where it originated, but it does nothing to improve Wikipedia as a whole. I don't agree with the position that Wikipedia should have one set of good articles that meet its standards, and another set of bad articles that don't meet its standards. Propaniac 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        not quite. A factoid that is undue on one article may be alright on another, depending on its relevance relative to the article subject (think Pokemon test). The question here seems to be "do we want 'in popular culture' articles at all?" since this discussion is in no way about Yeats in particular. I see no point in deleting the Yeats article but not the dozens of similar ones. What you want to do is strike up a general discussion about this on WP:VP. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back then prune. Bulldog123 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Also, do not call Sandy a noob. If the information was removed from the main article for FA concerns then all of the content is inappropriate for the article. Merging is not to be performed if it will negatively impact the target article. Loss of FA status would definitely be a negative impact. Jay32183 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back - Some of this is good and relevant information and would be beneficial to the Yeats pages (and hopefully sourced) but should be trimmed down. Statisticalregression 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to W. B. Yeats. Giggy _U^CP 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to those saying merge This content was removed from the main article for a very good reason, none of it belongs there. The problem is that the information was forked into a new article rather than simply deleted as it should have been. When dealing with an article that fails WP:NOT#DIR merging it doesn't solve the problem, shortening it doesn't solve the problem, and reformatting it doesn't solve the problem. If you want to write about W. B. Yeats in popular culture then do so with sourced analysis, not just things that refer to W. B. Yeats. Use secondary sources that analyze the fiction, and only reliable sources. None of the current information allows for the type of writing to which I refer, and merging any of it will only burden the main article. Jay32183 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, refactor and rewrite. Yeats was a significant and influential poet, whose impact on the culture and society of 20th century was profound: if Wikipedia is not a broad enough church to understand something as simple as that then in my view the entire project is doomed ultimately to failure. There is, beyond what currently exists, a major article here, and randomly deleting it at the point at which a body of the base of it has been demerged from the main page seems laughable. Wikipedia is NOT paper. Moreover Wikipedia is very much a work in progress. Delete this one and I can nominate you 30, maybe 50k, articles altogether more appropriate for deletion on grounds of notability alone (let alone those that should be excised with ruthlessness on the grounds of quality, style or content, or the sheer and vacuous idiocy of their contents). This is one page which should stay and which should be refactored and comprehensively rewritten. Sjc 04:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasKeep as per WP:SNOW even the nominator has indicated that the article has been improved and no longers believes it should be deleted. Gnan garra 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karrinyup Shopping Centre[edit]

Page is about an Australian shopping center. It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Actually, there's hardly any article within the article; the bulk of the page is a listing of stores within the shopping center, which seems to be right around the margins of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I took a look to see whether it could be expanded sensibly, but the media mentions I found were fairly trivial in nature. As such, I'm not particularly sanguine about its prospects for expansion, and I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that right now the article currently does not demonstrate the notability of the centre. I will withhold stating whether or not I believe that the article should be kept or deleted until editors with some knowledge of this centre are given a few days to determine if this article can be salvaged. I also agree that the tenant lists are not in keeping with WP:NOT and WP:TENANTS. Skeezix1000 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the significant improvements to the article since the AfD was made, I would now say that we should keep the article. Skeezix1000 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:TENANTS is an essay. Orderinchaos 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? How does that make the centre notable? Skeezix1000 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not community standards (merely one person's or a few people's opinion), but the use of them in this way makes it look like it has some sort of official status. I've been guilty of it in the past too, for the record. Orderinchaos 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Yes, the references tag is there for that reason (added after you attempted to prod the article). I'm on the phone right this moment to a friend with Factiva access, and we have 387 articles in front of us, from which we have so far found at least 20 significant references which pass both the WP:RS and WP:N tests, and provide a reasonable history of the article. This includes local and national papers of record, reports on the attendance of significant international musicians for events, international journals relevant to the subject matter, and even comments made to the media by significant members of the the state's legislative bodies. Am I the only one who can (after we get the time to perform a significant rewrite of the article which has been on a project to do list for a while) see a Snowball keep in our future? Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quickly get a few of those sources in the article, demonstrating the centre's notability, and then this shouldn't be a problem. More comprehensive article clean-up and addition of sources could wait until later for now. Skeezix1000 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've got full text copies of all those articles in question sitting in my inbox. In about 24hrs time baring the end of the world getting in my way they will be included. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. If they're as good as you say they are, and they make this into an actual article that demonstrates notability, I'd have no problem withdrawing the nom. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would simply refer to the comments of Orderinchaos below, This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. This is already staring to smell like WP:POINT. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, good grief. I noticed the article while I was sorting stubs that had been misfiled under {{business-stub}}, and I nominated it because it didn't seem notable and when I looked the only articles I found were either about its owners or trivial mentions. Since I had already looked for sources and didn't think there were any good ones, I wasn't impressed by the tag requesting sources, and I decided to bring it to AFD. Check the contribution log, and try assuming some good faith next time, eh? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for the WP:SNOW thing, there have only been four commenters on the AFD. Of those, two think it should be kept (and have promised to provide sources, which are still forthcoming), one thinks it should be deleted, and one hasn't decided one way or the other. How is that a consensus? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Note it was nominated at 23:00 WST and 01:00 AEST. Only those of us crazy enough to be up at this hour even noticed it. Orderinchaos 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think this AfD gives rise to WP:SNOW or WP:POINT. An article that consists almost entirely of tenant lists merits deletion, IMO. There is nothing to the current article. The AfD has had a positive result -- sources showing the notability of the centre will be added shortly. Skeezix1000 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:N - clearly meets notability criteria, being a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city with 1.6 million people (was 3rd biggest overall in Perth, down to 5th or 6th now). This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. As TheWinchester says, there are ample sources available to improve the article, although many of them were not available until recently as the uni-subscribed news service most of us use didn't keep publications older than 2001-02 until very recently, and most of the story which makes this shopping centre notable happened last decade. Orderinchaos 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'know, when I look at WP:N, I don't actually see any discussion of shopping centers at all. There IS a bit about widespread media coverage, though, so if you've found some sources that I couldn't reach over the pond here, then by all means add them to the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think a shopping center is notable enough on its own to be mentioned either outside of a page devoteed to the company who owns it and/or on a page of the location if its notable. Maybe if someone famous died there or if there was a huge lawsuit that made it news worthy, but I don't see anything like that. NobutoraTakeda 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [24][reply]
~~Delete~~. Don't know why there's the calls above for a WP:SNOW closure. In any case, the claims of notability above would be infinitely more helpful if sources were actually given and not just implied. If the sources are all older (ie. dead tree sources) that's fine, but they still must be given. Barring the discovery of actual sources to support the claims of notability I can only argue to delete this one. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is appropriately marked as a stub at the present moment. As said previously, AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags. Orderinchaos 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per OIC again as above, AfD is not a substitute for the placement of appropriate clean-up tags on an article and allowing time and good nature to take it's course. Literally, the project will for the next 24hrs have to kick this article in the pants because a user went WP:IDONTLIKEIT and didn't use clean-up tags. Additionally, how can you possibly pass judgement on something which you admit to not even seeing yet which you know is being worked on? So far, the most sensable comment I have seen here is from Skeezix1000 who defers his judgement pending the appropriate opportunity for clean-up. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that it looks like the article can be saved. I suspected that would be the case, which is why I held off stating my opinion. But as stated below, I don't believe that the AfD was inappropriate. Even a stub needs to show the notability of its subject. Clean-up tags are of limited use where there is nothing to clean-up. Right now, there is nothing in the article that suggests that WP:N is met, or even could be met. I'm glad that editors with knowledge of the centre have stepped in, but in the meantime the AfD should not have been unexpected. Skeezix1000 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating two different things here. I didn't nominate it for deletion solely because it hadn't been improved. I nominated it for deletion because it had not been improved and (in my judgement) was not capable of being improved, due to a lack of sources. If there aren't any sources, then it doesn't matter how long a cleanup tag sits on the page, since any party looking to improve it will be frustrated by the same problems that confronted me (unless there's somtething better out there, as you assert). As for your claim of dirty pool on the article's timeline, you created it back in December, and have had numerous opportunities to improve it in the intervening time (assumuing for a moment that it can be made into a good article, a point I'm not willing to concede until I actually see some RSes). It's not like I spotted a preliminary draft on Newpages and ambush-tagged it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:N. The question we are asking here is, is the subject notable? The answer is yes, a 54,000 sqm shopping centre in a city as isolated as Perth is clearly so. Only two comparable shopping centres exist in the region in consideration. Never mind that the article is clearly a stub - that is an issue for cleanup, and obviously something that would have been looked at given time. Editors are not only usually busy people but also volunteers and work on a range of article types, and by far the majority of articles on Wikipedia are at present stubs, so demanding they be developed at the sole discretion of another editor at the other side of the world is somewhat disingenuous. WP:DEL, Wikipedia's deletion policy, expressly states: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." I am concerned that this AfD (which started off as a proposed deletion!) and some of the comments above are an example of rampant Deletionism which has become the norm in recent times. I note that it is presently 12:36am in Perth, so most likely editors who actually are familiar with the subject, or with shopping centres in Australia more broadly, are unlikely to comment for some hours. Zivko85 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me what the time has to do with it. No one is going to close this AfD in less than 24 hours. As for this centre being notable, there is almost nothing in the article except tenant lists. There is nothing in the current article to suggest it can be improved, and the article requires far more than a mere "clean up". So the above quotes from WP:DEL aren't really relevant. It's great that editors who have a knowledge of the centre have come forward to suggest that sources evidencing notability can be found and added, but in the meantime, given the article's current state, I would suggest that we all spend more time finding the necessary sources and re-reading WP:AGF, rather than accusing others of inappropriate conduct. Skeezix1000 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The time is relevant as people are trying to use the *current* state of play to determine consensus, as stated above by at least one contributor. It would be nice to see some WP:AGF shown towards the article's contributors, who more than likely were not familiar with the resources (Orderinchaos has suggested above they became available only very recently) and created the article to fill a redlink, hoping that people with more knowledge of the area would fill in the gaps. Zivko85 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But of course the current state of the article is relevant. That's what an AfD is. If the article is improved, then the AfD is either withdrawn or the likely consensus is to keep the article. Right now, the article does not meet WP:N or WP:V - making it a possible AfD candidate. WP:V and WP:N are not contingent on whether or not one subscribes to the right database, and the scope of that database. I would have thought that if this centre is as notable as some are suggesting, a simple (and free) Google search would uncover some evidence of notability. As far as I can tell, there is no policy that suggests that WP:N and WP:V can be ignored until such time as "people with more knowledge" come forward to "fill the gaps". Even a stub has to show some evidence of notability. WP:STUB states very clearly that "small articles with little properly sourced information or with no inherent notability may end up being nominated for deletion or be merged into another relevant article" and "The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted." My main message here: we need to spend more time making the article comply with WP:N and WP:V, rather than taking offence at the AfD.Skeezix1000 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is size notable? My parent's property is larger than that and its not notable. The page lacks any notable events in history and has no special features that makes it more than just a generic shopping center. NobutoraTakeda 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your parent's home has 54,000 square meters of living space? How many bedrooms and how many bathrooms? Seriously, the figure for a mall should be "Gross leasable area" or GLA , not the real estate including the parking lot, landscaping, etc. See Shopping mall for a discussion of the industry standards for "region" and "superregional malls" based on GLA. It is one quick sort to help with deletion of articles about local malls. Regional or superregional malls are more likely to have reliable verifiable and independent sources with substantial coverage, which would be evidence of notability. Edison 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notable events in history? That's a big call to make given editors above have found *387* media references to it. Even my cursory checks bring up major deals involving two of Australia's largest companies, Multiplex and AMP Limited, going well into the billions, and some past involvement with key players in WA Inc in the mid-1980s. In light of the Sunday trading arguments in Perth (which went to a state referendum and lost), it's interesting that Karrinyup was the first ever centre to trade on Sundays. Zivko85 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those events aren't notable for the shopping center but for the companies in question. Notability doesn't rub off through association, or every movie star's childhood friend is notable as with anyone who was in a five block radius of the Star Wars movie studio. NobutoraTakeda 17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here, no references affirming notability per WP:CORP. Right now this article seems little more than spam. Delete, or merge into article about parent community. --El on ka 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to "Keep" from "Delete", as the article is now adequately sourced. I would also echo what some other editors are saying, in that I am disappointed in the amount of rudeness and personal attacks on this page. There seems to be a steady stream of Australia-related articles that are created in very poor shape (looking like little more than spam). Repeated requests to expand these articles are often just deleted with uncivil edit summaries. Then when the article actually goes to AfD after months of trying other avenues, there's suddenly a rapid burst of attention and even more personal attacks. Sometimes sources appear at that point and sometimes not, but the sour attitude involved is really not helping matters. In my opinion, the clear solution is this: When creating any article, always include at least one third-party source which affirms that subject's notability. If you can't provide a source, don't create the article. And especially don't create the article if it's just about a commercial entity, where the only source is to the entity's own website. If you do this, it looks like spam, and it's going to get tagged for deletion, just like thousands of other articles on Wikipedia that are tagged or deleted every day. --El on ka 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka. I tend to agree that some of the comment on Australia-related deletions can get away from the topic at hand onto the edge of personal attacks. My only advice there is to take action on the personal attacks as and when they occur. While I have seen some bitter comments on this current AfD I haven't seen anything that looks to me like a personal attack.Ga rr ie 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. No sources. the_undertow ^talk 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a directory, plus no assertion of notability. SamBC 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article as it exists is just a directory listing. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG for notability. If this is "a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city" as claimed above, then surely the people creating the article can find nontrivial third party news sources that say something notable about it. If they can't or won't, then there's no point to have it here. There's a slight argument to be made for the whole Wiki is not paper thing, but the bottom line is that there has to be some reason to have something, and there just isn't any that I can see for this one. DreamGuy 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With the claimed 54,000 sq meters (580,000 sq feet) of retail space it satisfies the 37,000 sq meter area to qualify as a "Regional" shopping center. The rejected guideline WP:MALL called for an assumption of notability for "Superregional malls" of over 74,000 sq meters (800,000 sq ft) of gross leasable area. A tally of AFD results shows that Superregional malls have generally been kept in AFDs but regional malls have a mixed record. A regional mall is still more notable than mere local strip malls or power centers, especially in a less populated area. Adding some sources satisfying WP:A would help show it satisfies WP:N Edison 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It looks like it is one of the largest shopping centres in that country and definitely looks notable, although it needs to be expanded significantly and sourced. 170 stores with several major tenants easily passes notability.--JForget 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' while it's nowhere near as big as Westfield Parramatta, within the Western Australian retail environment it's quite significant and notable. I will definately assume good faith of established contributors like Orderinchaos and Thewinchester and that there are sources available which simply need to be reviewed and incorporated. Ga rr ie 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC) *Delete unless something notable is found and sourced. Square feet are not notable, and proposals to judge shopping centers by that criterion alone have been rejected. If it is notable in Perth, thee will be sources saying so. DGG (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the major shopping centers in Perth are few and far between due to the city planning; as a result these shopping centers are an integral part of Perth, serving as commerce and transportation hubs. Note that there are very few articles in Category:Shopping centres in Perth, Western Australia, so there is no need to cull articles without good reason. Regarding the transportation hub aspect, see Karrinyup bus station, Perth and Booragoon bus station, Perth; the bus routes go all around the city stopping at train interchanges and bus interchanges at these shopping centers. John Vandenberg 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your justification reads like a tourist advertisement to Perth. If those places were important to Perth, then you must add them to the Perth page. They do not deserve their own page, and, as you admitted, are not important on their own outside of Perth. NobutoraTakeda 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable shopping centre, as now demonstrated within the article, and which would have been illustrated if the nominator had bothered to do his research beforehand. I'm irritated that he chose instead to waste our time here. Rebecca 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the nominator's job to prove that an article subject is notable. It is up to the editors who contribute to an article to ensure it complies with WP:N and WP:V. No time was wasted here -- the AfD resulted in significant and necessary improvements to the article, improvements which had not happened in the previous 6 months of this article's history. I am becoming quite annoyed at the inappropriate and snarky comments directed towards the nominator. For reasons I have set out several times above, the AfD was an appropriate response to (what was) an incredibly poor article. There was nothing in the article previously to suggest that it was an "easily notable shopping centre". Now the article is so much better -- well done to everyone involved, especially those who diligently searched for information showing the notability of the centre and the sources! Skeezix1000 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well we were all back from holidays, were on uni breaks and happened to have the time to do all this research! Had we not been, this article would have been deleted and we'd have had to go to DRV to get it recreated, which is insane. The point, I think, is that it shows a LOT more respect for editors to raise this sort of stuff at project talk pages and then only go down this road if such action genuinely leads nowhere. I think deletion becomes a first port of call far too many times, and it only creates ill feeling amongst the community when it hasn't been preceded by any good faith attempt to notify the relevant people who may be able to improve it. Orderinchaos 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. And waiting 30sec after a prod tag is cleared from an article (and appropriate reasoning included in the edit summary) before the nominator moves the issue to AfD is not using good faith by anyone's stretch of the imagination. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you have to take a "trust, but verify" attitude to a certain extent with these things. I wasn't assuming that you were lying about it being notable when I put together the nom, but on the other hand, if we just blindly took people's word for it when they said that things were notable, then nothing would ever get deleted, not even the things that obviously deserve it. I'm glad that you were able to improve this page, but I'm not going to apologize for nominating a bad article for AFD. The best defense against deletion is a good offense: when you start a new article, make sure that you include some actual content and sources, and then it won't be an issue in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to any past contributors, the article was in very poor condition and did not demonstrate the notability of its subject. It was a good candidate for AfD. Yes, I know that some of think that the nominator ought to have notified everyone of his intentions first, but it is not incumbent on him to do so. And, IMO, it wasn't the type of borderline article that ought to have prompted such notification -- the article didn't even come close to meeting notability criteria. Frankly, it was reasonable of him to have assumed that if after 6 months, with not one editor having added any evidence of notability, the centre was not notable. Being rated by Wikiproject Shopping Centres is not a substitute for actual article content. And, no the article would not have had to go through DRV to be recreated. The constant suggestions on this page that the nomination was either in bad faith and/or innapropriate themselves violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. The AfD should have been a surprise to no one. I'm very glad that the article has been improved, but I am quite saddened at the unnecessary negative tone and the misplaced outrage that have been expressed on this page. Skeezix1000 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources establish that it was a notable part of retail planning for Perth and that makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In view of a good understanding of the history of the regional development of Perth, Western Australia - this article along with a few others - are essential and integral in the process where shopping centres in the metropolitan suburbs removed forever the centrality and primacy of the Perth CBD - remove it - and you might as well say you know nothing whatsoever about the context of the location, or the context or history of the locality - let alone the inter-relationship with the politics of development in Perth and the issues mentioned by Zivko85 above. Satu Suro 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? If that was true, why does that look like OR that belongs on a page created by the shopping center? Also, if it was important to the politics, then a page about the politics of Perth could have a mention of it and that would be all it really deserves on Wikipedia.NobutoraTakeda 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've made your point NobutoraTakeda, there's no need to keep repeating it. Can I strongly suggest you go back and look at the article and see what's been happening in the last 12hrs before you make any further comments. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what is in the article at this time, I would class this as within the bounds of WP:N Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well sourced Recurring dreams 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Superb work on the referencing and rewrite to those who worked on this, this is a real obvious keep. Sigh, what a shame we're back to the "mall wars" where peoples' "gut instincts" that shopping centres are inherently non-notable or subject to a non-existent policy are attempting to override Wikipedia's primary notability criterion. --Canley 12:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changed from delete. Article is now adequately sourced to demonstrate notability. Kudos to the folks who actually take time to improve an article instead of just saying it can be improved. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adequately sourced? You mean giving mention in a news paper? If thats your rational for "notable" then I can list probably 40 different shopping centers that haven't been mentioned in Wikipedia at all. Want to help me create pages for them? NobutoraTakeda 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, adequately sourced. As best I can tell (based on the titles of the cited articles), the mall is the primary focus of a few of them, and at the very least mentioned in multiple other sources. That satisfies notability criteria as far as I am concerned. And sure, if you've got multiple independent sources for potential articles that haven't been created yet - let's get cracking. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. I can pick another random location if you want to go at it again. :) I still don't believe that shopping centers or anything of the sort are inherently notable. NobutoraTakeda 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I, which is why my original recommendation was to delete. Only after the addition of satisfactory sourcing did I change my mind. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could someone with some common sense please close this. Per TWin. Twenty Years 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be pretty well sourced, but this shouldn't be speedied.--Sefringle^Talk 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources--if it's notable, it can be sourced. Better than going by rank in an area or square footage. But since it was challenged let it run the full time. No harm will be done.DGG (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems well sourced enough. Lankiveil 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep As the article currently exists, adequate reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. However, the arrogance and rudeness of the article's primary author in responding to this AfD are rather disturbing, including the accusation that the nominator had created this AfD in violation of WP:POINT, particularly given the fact that the article was completely sourceless and consisted almost exclusively of a list of stores when the AfD was opened. I think a very important general rule was stated here by User:Thewinchester that "Literally, the project will for the next 24hrs have to kick this article in the pants because a user went WP:IDONTLIKEIT and didn't use clean-up tags. Additionally, how can you possibly pass judgement on something which you admit to not even seeing yet which you know is being worked on? So far, the most sensable comment I have seen here is from Skeezix1000 who defers his judgement pending the appropriate opportunity for clean-up." (see here). I hope that we can expect that in any and all future AfDs that all those involved with the creation of articles will be given the same courtesy that should have been received here well before an AfD was created. I don't think that nominating any article for deletion that could have been improved is a WP:POINT violation, as alleged here, but there is a basic and fundamental level of courtesy that should be applied in all cases when there is an opportunity to improve an article without the need to nominate it for deletion. Alansohn 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is important that where articles could be notable if more information was available that some time be given for the original authors/project teams to have the chance to bring it up to the appropriate level. After all opportunities have been exhausted, or in blatant cases, then bring it to AfD. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, strong keep, article has been majorly revamped and no longer resembles the original version. By now, this article is VERY much sufficient in detailing the mall's notability. Kudos to the hard-working Wikipedian(s) who re-wrote it ! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you already try to close this under snowball and that was reverted? Just because there is more detail doesn't mean its more notable detail. Its a loose association of facts, nothing of real note. A history does not make something notable. Stores do not make something notable. The events there have no justification for that actually being notable. A collection of mediocre facts, no matter how large, does not equal one notable fact. NobutoraTakeda 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on this AfD is already against you on this. And stop trying to disparage editor credibility on whatever violations you think they may or may not have performed, this act is getting both old and tired. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and well sourced --Melburnian 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'm at worst neutral on the article as it currently stands. I would have said something earlier, but I thought that it was closed. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel George Cefai[edit]

Apparent self-promotion of a person generally unknown. Drieakko 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any evidence of publications about this person; it seems all that exists are publications by him. And not enough of those to justify this article, either. May also want to consider the following additional articles:
all of which relate to work performed by this writer. JulesH 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- not notable and has only been the work of 1 author/ IP address WP:CSD#A7 ChrisLamb 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources on the man in question. Might be willing to reconsider if someone else were able to do so and thus demonstrate notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; no apparent references about the guy, just by him. These articles are weird. Propaniac 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for any page that only has Emmanuel George Cefai's information and is not notable on its own. NobutoraTakeda 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [25][reply]

Please do not delete before considering.

I object to the proposed deletion of the article on Emmanuel george Cefai because

1. all data and contents in it are easily verifiable and exist in public records (in this case mostly the news paper daily news of Malta)

2. Emmanuel george Cefai clearly merits this reference. : to delete this article would be to deprive other wikipedians from knowing fully about this important series of articles published by Dr. Cefai and the resume’ and critique of which forms basically the contents of the article.

3. The series of articles in question is clearly a very important academic contribution made by a Maltese scholar: and it would be unjust and discriminatory to exclude Dr. Cefai when so many other Maltese people are included.

More over should it be necessary to edit or change or remove any part or parts of this article this would be done reasonably ( communicating with the undersigned) without removing or deleting the article on Emmanuel George Cefai. 16th July 2007 user SunTrax

Suntrax, kindly note that the person in question is a lawyer gone to newspaperman gone to a self-proclaimed philosopher having no other scientific approach in his newspaper articles than his personal likings. As such he is on the same line than any blogger in the Internet. --Drieakko 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that ANYONE besides Dr. Cefai or yourself has called Dr. Cefai's articles "very important", it would go a lot farther towards saving these articles from deletion than anything else you could do or say. (To be fair, such a source would have to be reliable by Wikipedia standards.) Propaniac 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all a contemporary writer whose only published works--even asserted-- seem to 9 newspaper columns. DGG (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read I object to the comments of the proposers for deletion of the article Emmanuel George Cefai, because:

1. there must be a free flow of ideas and the ideas of Dr. Cefai have every right to be represented in Wikipedia and all the other wikipedians have the right to have access to these ideas.

2. Not a single ‘critic’ has succeeded in criticizing in a technical way or presenting technical and intellectual contra arguments to the ideas of Dr. Cefai.

3. The ideas of Dr. Cefai speak for themselves.

To these Critics I say please do not hinder the free flow of ideas and withdraw your objections. (SunTrax, 17/07/07 21:32)

Please note that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for any of the above. Like Propaniac asked, you need to provide reliable secondary sources establishing the notability of the subject. --Drieakko 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Clearly non notable, author unfortunately mistaken as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not intended to facilitate the free flow of philosophical ideas (although a wikiPhilosophy might not be a bad idea if it doesn't already exist) it is intended to be an encyclopedia of notable topics. I also think that we might have a COI issue as user SunTrax is also the creator of Emmaunuel Cefai's father's page Joseph Cefai this should also be checked for notability issues as currently it is sourced from Malta public record. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - articles are essentially being used to publish original works -- Whpq 21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G10) by Stemonitis (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McCafferty[edit]

This is a biography about a non notable person. NobutoraTakeda 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:BIO. The person has not been the subject of any published secondary sources that are reliable. A google search also fails to achieve any conclusive results for this subject in question. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably speedyable; growing to a normal height doesn't really qualify as an assertion of notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George A. Romero. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 11:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Dead[edit]

Diamond Dead is essentially a failed production that does not warrant its own article. The official site and the IMDb entry for the film have been rendered defunct, and there is zero sign that this project will ever see actual production. The article was prodded for deletion, but it was removed on the grounds that it caused "considerable controversy" without ever being produced. A Google search for "diamond dead" romero yields only 642 sites (not excluding junk sites). A more reliable Google news search with the same keywords only yields 49 headlines. The existing headlines fail to note multiple, significant coverages about the project's controversy. The project attempt is worth mentioning at George A. Romero with cited announcements like this, but there is too little coverage to warrant an article on an unmade film like this. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if it does need a mention, they can add a note at the Romero page. NobutoraTakeda 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [26][reply]
Keep I don't know about anyone else, but I think a film that managed to get 49 news stories without ever being released is quite notable. JulesH 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at the results, there are not 49 independent news stories providing significant coverage of the film -- two Washington Post headlines are actually listed redundantly a few times (due to different databases), and other headlines do not provide explicit detail about the project -- for example, "Names in the news" mentions the rumor of Marilyn Manson as Jesus as part of a list and not as the sole focus of an article. I would suggest looking through the headlines more closely to understand that there has not really been much coverage about this production other than "Romero is planning to do this film" (and considering his background, it's not surprising that someone would want to report his upcoming project back in 2004) and "Marilyn Manson might be Jesus in this film". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George A. Romero. Might not be notable enough for a standalone project, but if he was planning to do it at one point, the failed production is notable enough to be mentioned in his bio. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Failed projects can be notable, and this one seems to qualify, but there's not enough information right now to justify a standalone article. Propaniac 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for several reasons. Many scrapped media have their own articles. See The Fantastic Four (film), Socks the Cat Rocks the Hill, Night Skies, etc. Also, we don't know for certain this is scrapped. Romero is working on other projects like Diary of the Dead. I recall the controversy over the film, and tried to post the link to the main site protesting it, but it was blacklisted. It also couldn't easily be merged into the Romero article. There's too much info and the infobox should be retained. Tim Long 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse to keep this article. The examples you mentioned may very well warrant investigation for merging or deletion. In addition, it's illogical to keep an article on the off-chance that a film will be made, especially if there is no evidence suggesting that it will be made. If anything, the removal of the official site and the IMDb entry makes production of this project look bleak. Lastly, this article hardly has any cited information to warrant a fully developed article, so per WP:CFORK, it's better housed elsewhere, such as the director article. Of course, there's no prejudice against recreation if it can cited that actual production will take place on it. There's not even certainty if the Infobox Film template's information is correct -- it's usually taken from IMDb, and with the IMDb entry gone, it's impossible to tell if the existing information hasn't been altered since. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's notable as part of the information about Romero, but not as a standalone topic. -- Whpq 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of deleting it, just redirect it to George A. Romero. Then we can expand it if the project goes ahead. Tim Long 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R5 Crew[edit]

Non-notable local summer basketball team (0 non-wiki ghits, no evidence of notability offered in article). Article was speedied in the past, but tag removed by article's creator. Fabrictramp 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article completely fails the notability guideline. The subject in question does not have any significant coverage for this team . A google search also shows up the lack of reliable sources for this team. Thus it is impossible to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs) Corpx 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is like a community or street corner team. --Howard the Duck 04:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Those sources sound reasonable to me. >Radiant< 08:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taqwacore[edit]

This article on a "new genre" of music lacks sources and consists primarily of external links to bands. >Radiant< 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement, but a Google search seems to indicate that this is a real and notable genre. Here's a Guardian article as a start. Propaniac 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google News Search uncovers another article, from the Boston Globe, that could probably be used as a reference, but the full text isn't available for free. Propaniac 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cited references in the article, and the existence of other articles in Category:Taqwacore. As a cultural phenomenon, Islamic punk is here to stay. Shalom ^Hello 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a bona fide, real genre of music. Chubbles 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a new genre of music with an article about it in a major newspaper. Pats Sox Princess 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Article has significantly improved (by reverting to an earlier version, apparently) during the AFD, so this is now moot. >Radiant< 08:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allopathic medicine[edit]

This article has way more "citation needed", "neutrality" and "not encyclopedic" tags than is healthy. It would appear to be primarily original research, and the remainder is already covered in allopathic and/or allopath. >Radiant< 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep allopathic is a disambiguation page, not an alternative article. Highly encyclopedic topic, despite flaws in writing style. This is the history of Western medicine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but how is that a dab page? It has quite a bit of content on the subject. >Radiant< 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to medicine. "Allopathic" is an extremely POV way of saying "non-alternative" and is not used in the scientific community. --Charlene 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources, lots of interesting, encyclopedic content. We should embrace this debate, not sweep it under the carpet by redirecting to another term. If some of the content is original research, that should be deleted. However it looks to me as though it simply lacks appropriate sources. JulesH 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the others are extremely short, redundant, and ought to be merged into this one. It needs a cleanup and refocusing on the term, its origins, and how it's something of a pejorative for mainstream medicine. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if cleaned up. There is a better version to revert to [27]. In the interest of improving the article, I restored it--it is basically the first part of the article as tagged. The second part shifts to an attack on it as compared to osteopathy, without giving any evidence for this definition. Altogether POV: "Allopathic organizations, like the AMA, have a history of attempting to discredit other forms of medicine, examples include chiropractic and osteopathic medicine." The content was an attempt to get a less balanced POV fork from Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medicine, itself a rather sketchy article. DGG (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article. What's the problem here? ~ Infrangible 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article, far in excess of a dictionary definition, and reasonably referenced. There are over 80 Medline hits, so it is currently used in the medical literature. Espresso Addict 05:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Tiger Woods#Background and family. Walton^One 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cablinasian[edit]

Old debate here.

Essentially a neologism, this is a term that golfer Tiger Woods used to describe its heritage. It is not encyclopedic in and of itself. >Radiant< 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a neologism, and one that hasn't even caught on. Wikipedia is not the place for every nifty little non-word that a famous person utters. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tiger Woods#Background and family. "Cablinasian" is the key word in a notable quote from Tiger Woods; it is not a notable term in and of itself. Furthermore, the entire point of Tiger Woods' remark was to illustrate the lunacy of trying to fit each person's heritage into a tidy little box. How ironic then that there is now a Wikipedia article trying to pass this neologism off as a recognized and notable way of classifying ethnicity. Just divide them up into smaller boxes!

The section of the Tiger Woods article that I referenced covers all of the important information about this term. I think the redirect is valuable, because I can very easily envision someone encountering this term out of context in an article about Tiger Woods and trying to search for it on Wikipedia. But it definitely does not need its own article. --Jaysweet 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The plan that Jaysweet proposed sounds like a good soloution. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO or a redirect would work Corpx 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article but wouldn't hurt to include it somewhere on Tiger's page. --UntilMoraleImproves 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned, the term is well-described at Tiger Woods#Background and family, which gives all of the useful information in the article plus puts the quote in context. --Jaysweet 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Jaysweet. At best a semi-notable protologism connected solely with Woods. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Jaysweet. --Fabrictramp 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Guru[edit]

This article is the only contribution by Rajgurunyc (talk · contribs), hence a blatant WP:COI. The pastel templates describe other problems, and given the shoddy grammar and lack of references, I'm afraid this article is beyond hope. Shalom ^Hello 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I also note that the external link goes to a totally different person of the same name.--Fabrictramp 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [28][reply]
Delete. Blatant promition. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Burntsauce 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge of the Gods[edit]

Delete - prod removed with no explanation. Article fails WP:PLOT as being a pure plot summary of a story arc. There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of the story arc either within or outside the fictional universe, although search results may be muddied by the God of War game that uses this as a subtitle. Otto4711 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ForbiddenWord 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional event that has received no coverage from the real world Corpx 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holla at Me[edit]

Delete - prod removed without comment. There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this single. Does not appear to pass the suggested songs guideline at WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with Born-N-Raised and Grammy Family to Listennn... The Album, which is the album they were all cut from. JulesH 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't really seem to be anything to merge for this or Born-N-Raised although I agree neither should exist as separate articles. Grammy Family may be independently notable because it was the subject of a "...Makes a Video" segment on MTV2. Otto4711 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - added Born-N-Raised to this nomination as the outcome should probably be the same for each stub. Otto4711 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this information was necessary it would be added to the artists' page and not given a new page that has no real information on the subject or critical review. NobutoraTakeda 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [29][reply]
Delete Unless the song has charted. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric mckinney[edit]

Non-notable musician/music producer. Does assert a "mention" in a national magazine, but not certain if it was a non-trivial mention or if subject of multiple independent sources required for notability. Article reads like a huge vanity/self-promotion piece, discussing personal life of subject and relatives. Article was previously tagged as a CSD A7 by another editor but creator of article removed tag. Wingsandsword 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. The bulk of the edits come from two single purpose accounts, user:Texastime99 and user:WLstudioAustin99. The second username suggests a conflict of interest. I have added the afd template to the article. Trugster | Talk 12:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and possible sock-puppetry. LittleOldMe 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The IP Address looks to be the same person too. R00m c 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can save it per WP:HEY and find real cites. Bearian 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 I will speak in defense of Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön) a bit: Alan, please see Columbian exchange. —Kurykh 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000-1491: Environmental events[edit]

The timeline has no clear focus on a particular topic. It covers natural events, fires in cities, human health etc. This is effectively a history timeline. Other timelines have the same information but with a better focus on a topic. The chosen time period is arbitary. Alan Liefting 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The rationale for deletion is unconvincing to me, and speaks more to the need for cleanup and referencing. It would help if someone could cite similar articles that the nom is hinting at (I couldn't find it from a quick search in the category.) Shalom ^Hello 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The afd is covered by Timeline of environmental events, List of historic fires and others at Category:Timelines. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles like this serve an indexing function. Not sure what sort of references would be needed for this list, at least for those elements that link to specific articles; the brief statements in a list should be referenced there rather than here. The cutoff date is hardly arbitrary: in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and that date is reasonably selected as ushering in a new period in human interaction with the environment. There really isn't a clear reason given as to why this should be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you see Columbus as an "ushering in a new period in human interaction with the environment"? If this is the case should the timeline extend after this date. I could perhaps also argue that the arrival of the first humans on the American continent is a more important date. The early humans caused numerous extinctions - the same scenario as with other areas. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to keep lists of events that are only notable through bias or aren't really necessary. If something big did happen, the event would be given its own page, so the non-notable and unnecessary events are there based on the notability of others. Information is redundant and not neceesary for an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [30][reply]
Delete. This list has no clear inclusion criteria - there is no attempt to define or explain what an "environmental event" is. It appears to be largely an attempt to make a list of natural disasters, which would be better handled by List of disasters and its children, but then again this also attempts to catalogue various and largely unrelated events such as construction projects and technological advancements. As per the nominator, the list has no clear focus whatsoever. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "list of loosely associated items" I'd have no problem with it if it was List of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes etc Corpx 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unconvinced that the chosen start and end dates are not arbitrary, and that the inclusion criteria for this list are clear or can be made clear. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — mholland (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete environmental events seems to be a cross-section of natural disasters, food shortages (caused by ?), fires (caused by ?), and anything else that killed, starved, or made lots of people unhappy. The selection will always be POV and subjective unless we limit to List of volcanic eruptions, List of famines, List of tsunamis, List of earthquakes, etc. (at least two of which we aparently already have: famines & earthquakes). Carlossuarez46 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's historical. I would like to see more like this, although the list would grow exponentially as you reach present day. ~ Infrangible 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Timeline of environmental events. It covers the complete history of the Earth rather than a short, arbitrary period. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The idea is a good one, but currently this list is defined only with very vague criteria. What precisely is an "environmental event"? It's not explained, and thus we have everything from a famine to the building of a canal. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Infrangible or merge with Timeline of environmental events per Alan Liefting. Bearian 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see the discussion at Talk:1000-1491: Environmental events. -- Wavelength 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs clarification and definite improvements, but I think it has potential. --Android Mouse 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification would be to rename it as "1000-1491: Natural events" and delete the very small number of events that relate to human activity. Alan Liefting 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has no intro, the time period is arbitrary and the events are multiple. Narrow it down and put it in context, otherwise Delete it. Darrenhusted 22:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleanup. The notabiliy - or rather, notoriety - of Mr. Weberman is beyond dispute. The nominator's claim of WP:COI by Ajweberman (talk · contribs) and 66.108.22.125 (talk · contribs) appears to be correct. The article history provides an excellent example of what happens when experts such as Gilliam (talk · contribs) and Herostratus (talk · contribs) must play on the same field as COI-niks, but that's no reason to delete the whole article. Early non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Weberman[edit]

I think this article was written almost entirely by Weberman himself, and treats his wild assertions almost entirely favorably, while couching it in the language of wikipedian neutrality. Weberman is an insignificant figure-- I fail to see how someone who the majority of web hits for are all related either (a) to his own webpages or (b) having gone through Bob Dylan's trash deserves his own wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mysteriousfumanchu (talk • contribs).

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weberman is a complete nutcase, no doubt about that, but anyone with an interest in Bob Dylan has heard of the guy. The fact that the article is imbalanced, in not pointing out the guy's a loonie, doesn't mean it should be deleted but improved. Nick mallory 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Nick said. Spazure 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup, per Nick mallory.--JayJasper 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The article is well referenced with links to independent sources. The subject matter is also quite notable in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Easily a notable guy, article needs cleanup. I'll leave that to the Dylan fans though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. both sides does have valid and invalid reasons for both keeping the article and deleting it, the deleting agruements were weaker in my opinion, many delete as nonsense votes, and just because a certain user created the article. Those aren't reasons to delete. Another agruement I noticed is that it's PoV and was created only because of the Israeli article. ChrisO does have agruement with the move, but didn't have much support for it. In my opinion, for the sakes of WP:NPOV is to place all those apartheid articles in AFD and let the community decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of French apartheid[edit]

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

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

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

this article is a joke and a collection of clichés and lies. it has nothing to do with the apartheid definition and focus on algerian muslims living in france. this article is not serious and does not exist in the other wikipedia versions, i suggest its deletion. by the way there is nothing about northern ireland its real apartheid ha. Paris By Night 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

allegation of lies:

France maintained colonial rule in the territory which has been described as "quasi-apartheid" :this is stupid and totally false. there was no such things as US buses for black and white in algeria, :besides algeria was truly part of france as made of département like today corsica. for example muslim :children went in public schools with european french kids, i've seen worst apartheids. this view is a :simplification by american editors, reads like all mslim in france are from algeria, but this totally :false many comes from morroco and tunisia and black africa as well, all of which are former french :colony or protectorates, there is not a single word about this. this article is totaly oriented and a :mystification this can be seen in "Criticism"'s POV authors selection. this article doesn't exist in :other language, don't ask why. Paris By Night 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plus there is nothing like "race" in france, france is not the united states! there is nothing like Racial segregation in the United States and never was, not even in algerian departements. Paris By Night 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep article properly sourced and notable.--Cerejota 12:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the whole series. They are all irredeemable POV collections of slurs. Mowsbury 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find that the whole series would be deleted if they whole series was nominated in a group nomination. Individual AFD's have failed in all but one case up until now. My reason for my AFD vote here is that it the article seems to completely follow all of Wikipedia policies and requirements for articles, as can be seen both by its content and the precedent for dealing with its sister articles.--Urthogie 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie is absolutely right, Mowsbury. This is a WP:POINT and WP:ALLORNOTHING hostage-type situation. The editors creating these articles don't believe in them, and are willing to "trade" their deletion for the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to.--G-Dett 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I do believe in these articles so long as one of them exists. If only Brazil's apartheid allegation article existed, then that would be singling out Brazil. It's an NPOV issue, not a POINT issue. And WP:ALLORNOTHING applies to justification for AFD votes, not suggested new AFD's or changes in notability policies.--Urthogie 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Well sourced article drawing from numerous notable publications. If there's a POV problem, fix it. JulesH 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - WP:POINT by the article creator who has been a frequent, noted critic of Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Variations of this tactic have been used too many times to count. Tarc 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. Seems like a bad faith nomination. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a precedent for keeping "allegations of apartheid" articles. If someone created an AFD for all of these articles, that would have a strong chance of succeeding. It is irrational, however, to apply differing standards from one article to the next. Also, to Paris by Night, I believe race does exist in the French mind-- at least according to Frantz Fanon!--Urthogie 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a couple of sources that actually appear to pursue the comparison. Most on the other hand merely use the word "apartheid" once for what appears to be rhetorical effect. These passages are then presented in such a way as to make the rhetorical effect look like an extended comparison. All fifteen of the sources are listed twice, first as "Notes" and then as "References," in order to give the illusion of depth in sourcing. The fact that this article has been cobbled together by two editors who know nothing about the subject matter and are merely compiling quotes they've found through Google-searches, and that the WP:POINT of all this is to create a bargaining chip with which to bring about the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to, doesn't bode well for its future quality. I vote only "weak delete," however, because I don't know that much more about the subject than the authors do, so it's possible that there's a quality article to be written on this by an editor with genuine interest in and knowledge of the subject. If that's the case – that is, if there are sufficient RS-foundations for this and such an editor comes forward, I wish him or her the best of luck in coaxing the article out of the sweaty palms of the pranksters now clutching it. For the purposes of this AfD, the comments and recommendations of editors with experience editing France-related (or civil-rights-related) articles should be given much more weight than those of other editors.--G-Dett 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it ironic to advocate that some people's votes should count more than others when discussing apartheid? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is indeed ironic. It seems that self-righteousness always brings the worse in people, regardless of the truth of their arguments. --Cerejota 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pretty weak as ironies go, given that Wikipedia is not a democracy, given that AfD's are explicitly not to be regarded as votes (because "justification and evidence for a response carry far more weight than the response itself"), and given that I'm not placing myself in the category of those whose recommendations should be given greater weight. But share your irony with the right people, and we might see an article called Allegations that arguments used in AfD discussions are like apartheid.--G-Dett 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Touché ;). I follow French politics very closely and my daily news fix comes largely from French-language papers. I have never, not a single time, encountered the word "apartheid" in the context of French racial problems. And let's remember they're not only limited to France, they've spilled over to Belgium, too. Cars have been set on fire here in Brussels as they were in France but I think the press here just knows what apartheid is, and what isn't. We're talking racial and religious tensions here, not official discrimination of any kind.--Targeman 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pretty strong, actually; you attempt to create two classes of "voters", with an ostensibly neutral classification, but in actuality affecting mostly editors who have argued that this article should be kept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, drop it already. You're late on the joke and you're not making any sense. At the time I wrote that the comments and recommendations of France-focused editors should be given greater weight, exactly two France-focused editors had "voted": one for delete (the nominator), one for "speedy keep" (JulesH).--G-Dett 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apartheid in the strict sense means systematised segregation condoned by the authorities. France does not have apartheid. Either that, or every single western country has apartheid. All the quotes cited in the article are in the pejorative sense, "blatant, gross, discrimination or racism" (of which any country in the world can be accused of).--Victor falk 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because these are allegations. Allegations are just allegations and unless proven in court or through media. This will be appropriate as a subsection of French apartheid, but not on its own Corpx 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French apartheid does not exist as an article, it is a redirect to this page. It seems to be that you are actually suggesting a rename to french apartheid, not a delete.--Urthogie 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a rename. A french apartheid article would have to be created from scratch, which analyzes the orgins/history/ending etc of it, with the allegations being a part of it. Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations are just allegations unless proven, yes. But "allegations" that by their very nature can never be proven or disproven – because they're subjective, evaluative, interpretive, comparative, vituperative, etc., rather than falsifiable statements of fact – are not, of course, "allegations" at all. But if you're asking for basic literacy from the scribes behind this hoax, you'd be asking too much.--G-Dett 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong. First hand accounts, court-proceedings etc all prove allegations to be true or false. It'd be better off in a form similiar to [[31]] instead of purely being a list of allegations Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you agree then. "Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong." Yes, exactly, that's my point. Things that can never be proven right or wrong are not called "allegations" – they're called comparisons, interpretations, analogies, critiques, whatever it is that they are. Thomas Jefferson allegedly fathered several children by his slaves, very well, no problem. But not: Thomas Jefferson was allegedly a hypocrite.--G-Dett 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I disagree again. How exactly would one go about proving who Jefferson went around fathering babies with? I'm saying that these allegation against ____ have no merit to stand on their own, but instead should be part of the article in question. Corpx 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA, maybe? The point is, allegations are statements of fact. They are things that either did happen or did not happen; proof/disproof are at least conceivable even if not practical. Subjective judgments, however – statements to the effect that X resembles Y, or is reminiscent of it, or whatever – are not "allegations." Oh, hell, it doesn't matter – when language slides, let it slide, you can't stop glaciers. --G-Dett 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some allegations are noteworthy and encyclopedic. See Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example. If there weren't reliable sources, then I'd say they were unencyclopedic allegations, but these seem noteworthy. We can't pretend the allegations don't exist. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite obviously. A neologism. Let us not fool ourselves: everyone who comes here knows that this article's creation and continued existence is disruptive; it was created in response to the Israeli Apartheid article (which, I maintain, should be about the use of the term and not the mess of charges and counter-charges it is now) in order to indicate that allegations of apartheid are widespread. This is WP:POINT; however widespread segregation, even legal segregation is, the only term that is encyclopaedic is Israeli Apartheid. The others are all, quite simply, WP:POINT. The article is terribly written, largely OR, reading far too much into one or two op-eds. Delete with extreme prejudice. Hornplease 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in line with other "Allegations of (country) apartheid" articles. Beit Or 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it's "in line with" some other junk created by the same authors is self-evident, but how is this an argument for its retention?--G-Dett 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles have, like the Israeli apartheid article, survived AFD's.--Urthogie 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegations of Andorran Apartheid" would also be 'in line with' other articles. Clearly not a good enough reason to keep this junk.Hornplease 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources dealing with "andorran apartheid."--Urthogie 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And none here either. Use of the word 'apartheid' in combination with 'France' does not make a notable phrase, or even a notable allegation. Which you know. Hornplease 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does make a notable phrase, then?--Urthogie 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There could be several standards. This isn't one by any reasonable standard.Hornplease 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those who maintain that that Israel article is somehow unique. What is your basis for that? The Chinese apartheid article features quotes from the Dalai Lama and our lord and savior Jimmy Wales. Aside from length and controversiality, what exactly seperates allegations against Israel as unique, aside from the disproprotionate amount of press coverage the Middle East receives, thus resulting in more possible reliable sources?--Urthogie 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disproportionate amount of coverage and analysis the Middle East receives. Oh, you answered it in your question. Hornplease 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so, it's a completely subjective decision about a quantitative value, then? 20 articles is enough coverage, 10 is not..? Or is it 15? Please define an actual qualitative, rather than quantitative reason for keeping the Israel one and not the others. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you miss the point. Even if the conditions in Israel are not unique, the disproportionate coverage and analysis raises otherwise non-notable allegations to encyclopaedic notability. And as for 'qualititative, not quantitative" - that's not how we work. Horrible, apartheid-like conditions may prevail in Andorra, but until everyone and Jimmy Carter gets involved, WP doesn't care. Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli apartheid article existed for years before Jimmy Carter's comments. Would you have supported its existence before his comments?
The article on alleged Chinese apartheid includes stuff from Jimbo Wales, from the Dalai Lama. Would you therefore support the existence of that article?--Urthogie 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters about my opinions, but the talkpage of that article shows I was highly ambivalent about it, and I did not vote to keep on any of the AfDs prior to the mainstreaming of the phrase.

Chinese Apartheid is a phrase marginally notable purely because the Dalai Lama used it a few times in the early 1990s. I would not vote to keep or delete that article. Jimbo is irrelevant.

I trust that satisfies you about my motives. I am not going to discuss them again.Hornplease 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stuff" is a pretty good word for the China article's haphazard sourcing, though I still prefer "junk." Take a look at the Dalai Lama source: a BBC article in which the word "apartheid" appears once, in a pull-quote. This is what I mean by 'passing reference,' and it does absolutely nothing to support the legitimacy or notability of a subject. Move on to the Heritage Foundation block-quote, which a Wikipedian has misrepresented (deliberately?) as "discuss[ing] some of the reasons for the use of this term." No it doesn't. It's just juicy material from an article that in a subsequent passage, and in a different context, makes passing reference to apartheid: "Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet." That's the only mention of apartheid in the entire article. What does the material Wikipedia quotes at length have to do with it? Nothing. It's just more "stuff." Move on to the Desmond Tutu stuff. Tutu tells the Tibetans God is on their side, and our boys type "Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has also drawn comparisons between the fight to end South African apartheid and the Tibetan struggle for independence from the People's Republic of China." If Tutu speaks to a room full of terminally ill patients and tells them not to lose heart, our boys will be able to create Allegations that Cancer is Apartheid. Now to the Jimbo Wales reference. Here the article suddenly becomes cryptic: the only direct quote is something odd from Wales about how Google has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" by giving in to Chinese authorities." Huh? Whuh? Then you click on the link and find that the original article didn't even quote Wales on apartheid, it just mentioned in passing that Wales himself had made a passing mention of apartheid. Jimbo objects to Chinese censorship in strong terms; the AP quotes his strong words, then mentions in free indirect that he also invoked South Africa; and our boys type up eagerly what AP could barely be bothered to mention, and throw in a driver's-licence/college-yearbook style photo of Jimbo to liven things up. There's no context, no explanation, we don't even understand what the comparison was, just the smiling snapshot, serene in its irrelevance. Stuff. Junk. Stuffed with junk.--G-Dett 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how WP:POINT is involved, as there is no disruption here. Everyone seems to be assuming bad faith about the contributor who has written this article, and I see no reason to think that. The article discusses allegations that are, in fact, notable, having been reported in multiple reliable sources, and having apparently had significant impacts on French culture and politics. I see no reason to delete here. JulesH 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head, meet sand. WP:Ostrich in reverse here. The fact of self-segregation may have had a significant impact on French society. Some commentators see such self-segregation as resulting in apartheid-like conditions. Sourcing the first and the second to reliable sources and then putting them together is the very nature of OR.Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No two things are being synthesized together. The entire page is about one thing-- the rhetoric of alleging apartheid against France.--Urthogie 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page is about that, or so the title attests. My analysis of the sources, however, is one I recommend to all others who wish to comment.Hornplease 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps we should take "apartheid" and put it on the list of words that are not to be used for article titles; like "cult" (except when dealing with ancient observances called cults in their own time) and "tyrant" (except for certain ancient Greek rulers so-called as a neutral title in their own time). Allegations of Fooian apartheid is little differen that allegations that so-and-so is a tyrant, or allegations that Fooism is a cult, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support that proposal-- with the exception of the Crime of apartheid and History of South Africa in the apartheid era articles. Allegations of apartheid articles should be renamed to a far more neutral name.--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2005 civil unrest in France. The allegations of "apartheid" are largely limited to this period and its aftermath. Please let's not devalue the word "apartheid" which means an official policy of segregation --> South Africa before Mandela, the US before Luther King, Nazi Germany. There is not and never has been any such policy in France. --Targeman 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all. Per NPOV, no preferential treatment. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not require equal treatment of articles of unequal notability. Hornplease 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. And the loudest scream is not an indication of being right. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And being right has got nothing to do with being notable. I trust you will keep to reasonable arguments for deletion in future.Hornplease 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all." Thanks, Humus, for aptly summing up the hostage situation and making clear your demands.--G-Dett 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. To make my "demands" clear, Keep. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Article is well written, encyclopedic, and uses high quality sources, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deleting. Nor are the various ad hominem comments that have peppered this AfD. The article also uses sources that all refer directly to French apartheid, and multiple sources refer to the same issues, so there are not WP:NOR issues. Finally, I did an experiment last night and hit the "Random article" button twenty times; the majority of articles didn't even have any references, and the best article only had four. This one has 15, and the article itself was longer than all but 3 articles. I recommend this test to other editors, to see how this article stacks up against the Wikipedia norm. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the article is well-written is debatable and, in any case, irrelevant. That it uses high-quality sources is possible, but that those sources have been used in synthesizing original research is likely, which is something I notice you have not addressed. Such misuse of sources is a concern as endemic to this project as unsourced assertions. Hornplease 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have edited your post in an attempt deal with my concerns, which should perhaps have been done in response, I hope you will permit me to reply: the sources to not refer 'directly' to French apartheid. The quotes say things like "France is disintegrating before our eyes into socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid. The rich live in their own ghettos.". "Algerians encountered France's 'civilising mission' only through the plundering of lands and colonial apartheid society.." etc, etc. In each case, apartheid is used as a convenient signifier for a stable segregation. None of the sources make any effort to categorically compare France to apartheid-era SA; none of the sources make an effort to analyse a discourse which would use that term; practically none of the sources even use the term "French apartheid". (Perhaps because most of the people writing, polemicists though they are, seem to be better researchers than us.) Put simply, this could be held up as a textbook example of bad original research. Hornplease 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Dezidor 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I have said elsewhere, I generally do not like "Allegations of" articles (or articles that amount ot that even when not so-called). However, what I'd like would be cherry-picking which allegations are "true" and deleting the rest. If someone wanted to put all of these articles up for an AfD, I'd be willing to vote yes. IronDuke 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep together with all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid", or better, delete them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING (and same goes for the numerous "per jossi" on this page). Please, let's be constructive. What are you trying there ? Benjamin.pineau 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is to be kept, please get rid of the word "apartheid"! This is an intolerable abuse of language. As I said before, let's not water down the meaning of apartheid. What next, Allegations of French genocide of Muslims? "Apartheid" is waaaaay over the top. And it's an insult to the memory of the victims of true apartheid. --Targeman 00:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the use of the term "apartheid" an "intolerable abuse of language" only in the case of this particular article, or is it an "intolerable abuse" in all six "Allegations of apartheid" articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Apartheid" is an incorrect term for all of the mentioned countries except Saudi Arabia, which has a clear, unambiguous and systematically enforced official policy of segregation - of sexes in this case. For other countries, "widespread discrimination" or "officially endorsed discrimination" or similar would be a more appropriate term. --Targeman 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, many editors here insist that it is only applicable in the case of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is applicable not so much to Israel as to the Occupied Territories - which only Israel recognizes as its own territory. In Israel itself (i.e., the part internationally recognized as Israel), racism and mistrust permeate all levels of society but there's nothing like an official policy of segregation.--Targeman 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per jossi. --tickle me 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in and of itself. Although the Algeria aspects should be keep and integrated into the article on Frances involvement in Algeria. French apartheid really should be about apartheid in France proper. Right now the article is too much of an arbitrary collection without a focus, something that Wikipedia is NOT. --CGM1980 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on User:Targeman's comment, I'm wondering if people would be more generally happy if the article were renamed to Racism in France and its scope expanded to cover this subject more fully? JulesH 07:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not really. Racism is just an expression of universal human stupidity. If we had an article about everything stupid humans have ever done, Wikipedia would need a server the size of the solar system. What I'm objecting to is the awful word apartheid in this context. Nobody talks about Stalinist gulags in Putin's Russia or the resurgence of Nazism in Germany because there are a few Hitler nuts left around. I personally propose to merge this article into 2005 civil unrest in France. Racism is widespread in France as it is everywhere but it has never, ever been a matter of public policy. What France is facing are the usual effects of a massive and largely monoethnic immigration of blue-collar workers into a sclerotic economy that just can't cope. Sure this breeds disgruntlement but apartheid, no way. --Targeman 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JulesH's suggestion is a good one, given that most of the sources for this article are articles about racism, and few if any of them are about "allegations of French apartheid". Targeman's demurral is also well-reasoned, but this is a moot discussion either way. The authors of this article will never permit the title to be changed, no matter what the substantive support for such a move, because their very WP:POINT in cobbling this page together was to use it as a bargaining chip to secure the deletion of a different article. For the hoax to work, both the original article and the hostage/bargaining chip article need to have parallel titles. Have a look at the demands made explicitly by HumusSapiens and Jossi (and insinuated by Jayjg) above, and by Amoruso below, and the mechanics of the hoax will become clearer.--G-Dett 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose it would help to request that you focus on the article, and the relevant policies, rather than your impressions regarding other editors? And is there any point in requesting that you tone down your rhetoric while you're at it? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep no valid problems with article unless all apartheid allegations against democracies are removed for policy reason/encyclopedic - see jossi. Amoruso 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why all or nothing? The point here is if there is a noticeable debate of allegations of apartheid against the French government. Debates against other governments may or may not be substantiated, but there are not in this article. It is just a collection of quotes from articles using "apartheid" as hyperbole for racism and discrimination in France.--Victor falk 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Quadell Taprobanus 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced to notable scholars, all using the apartheid analogy. Isarig 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Please read them. I don't call an article that first has a section "Notes" which contains footnotes and then a section "References" that contains almost but not all the same sources in the former "well-sourced". The sources are not to notable scholars, or even unnotable ones, but mostly to massmedia news items. And hardly any of them uses the word "apartheid" more than once, and generally in a wholly incidental manner.--Victor falk 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? The very first reference cites David Scott Bell – a professor of French Government and Politics at Leeds university, and the author of several authoritative books on contemporary French politics. The second cites a peer reviewed book published by one of the leading publishers of academic research which discussed French policy in Algeria. He third is yet again, a book published by the University of California Press, by a noted UC professor of History considered by some to be one of America's best historians of post--World War II French politics. How are these non-notable academics or "massmedia news items"? Isarig 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st ref: the word "apartheid" appears once (p.36) in a 286-page book on Presidential power in Fifth Republic France. 2nd ref: the word "apartheid" appears once on page 3 of a 233-page book called France and the Algerian Conflict: Issues in Democracy and Political Stability, 1988-1995. 3rd ref: "apartheid" appears once, on p.262 of the 335-page France, the United States, and the Algerian War. The problem with this article is not that it lacks sufficient scholarly sources; the problem is that none of these sources talk about "allegations of French apartheid." They just use the word "apartheid," once apiece. They do not even pursue the comparison; they just use the word and move on. When Wikipedians gather up stray instances of a word's use from primary sources, and then describe the pattern of use they see and create a narrative around it, the result is original research.--G-Dett 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the (obviously false and ridiculous) claim that "The sources are not to notable scholars, or even unnotable ones, but mostly to massmedia news items". When such patently false objections are raised, it seems likely that the people making them have not bothered to look at the article. If you'd like to raise a different objection, such as that in your view the scholarly sources do not make the allegation of Apartheid strongly enough, that's quite a different matter, and probably not something for which we can find an objective metric. Isarig

Again, the problem is that next to none of these sources talk about "allegations of French apartheid." To have a Wikipedia article on a subject, you need reliable sources who talk about it. That a pattern in various writers' use of the word "apartheid" is detected by two Wikipedians and the mayor of Montpellier does not make it a notable topic.--G-Dett 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Isarig Jayjg Zeq Humus SlimVirgin Shamir1 and co. DeleteThe subject is non-notable, but the article should be kept as an instructive example of how far the Zionists will go in their attempts to deflect criticism from their regime. If they spend their time and energies attacking the French, they might give the rest of us a break. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote:I have reviewed the keep votes, and they all boil down to WP:ALLORNOTHING which is not a valid argument in deletion debates. These editors have stated that they do not care if this article is deleted, as long as Alegations of Israeli Apartheid also gets deleted. But other articles are irrelevant to this debate.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are advocating keeping an article you believe is non-notable, as a way to make a point, while conducting a personal attack on other editors. Considering how little regard you have for WP policies, you should really rethink your involvement in the project. Isarig 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My good friend Isarig! Even when I agree with you, you are not happy.... I did not create this artcile. But if you and your friends decide to go to war against France, Cuba, Brasil, and the rest of the world, who am I to stand in your way. Good luck... 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Whatever one thinks of the Israel apartheid debate, the fact is that a prominent, fractious and complex discussion and evolved. You have big names, you have wide opposition, and you have a standard list of points, facts, and arguments that recurringly come up. The end result is a topic that can't effectively be discussed in any other articles that have been suggested. With this article, I don't see any of that; solely a principle that all countries should be treated the same, never mind whether the issues or discussions actually differ. If we have a discussion of apartheid in Algeria, then it seems that would much better fit in French rule in Algeria. If we have a discusion of the Social situation in the French suburbs, then a neutral article also already exists. Unless those are somehow inadequate, then I don't see why this article is needed or appropriate. Mackan79 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mackan is right that the sheer volume of RS-foundations for Allegations of Israeli apartheid dwarfs that of this article, but it's worth noting that the difference is not only one of scale but of kind. In the Israeli case, there is a large, long-standing and multifaceted debate and discussion of the allegations themselves. That debate and discussion is the subject and raison d'être of the article. The only rationale for having an article on allegations or analogies (as opposed to articles on the policies in question – the Israeli occupation, French colonial history or current socioeconomic inequalities, etc.) is that the allegation/analogy is itself a notable subject. This is simply not the case of this article. It is wholly unlike the Israel article in this respect. Not one of the fifteen sources for Allegations of French apartheid is about the analogy; each is about some other topic (Algeria, post-colonial inequalities in France, the debate about the veil, gender relations within Muslim immigrants), and in the course of talking about that other topic the word "apartheid" is used metaphorically. Usually only once. That's right: even in the several academic studies cited for this article, which are hundreds of pages long, the word apartheid appears only once. The only statements about the analogy/allegation in the entire article that aren't pure original research by Jay or Urthogie are 1) a diverseeducation.com reference to the opinions of a Professor Hutchinson; and 2) the comment from the mayor of Montpellier, which is misattributed to a Guardian article in which it never appeared. In short, unlike the Israel article, this article presents a topic that almost none of its supposed sources have even addressed. It's an article about a pattern of linguistic usage, and one noticed not by RS's but rather by Jay and Urthogie. This isn't a Wikipedia article; this is a piece of investigative journalism, carried out by editors using Google and Googlebooks to track down every instance in which someone used the word "apartheid" in connection with anything French. The results of this original research cum investigative journalism have then been cobbled together and made to superficially resemble the Israel article, for the WP:POINT-purposes I've detailed above.--G-Dett 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep ??? Ya got 4 references where apartheid appears as a key word in the title, don't go interpreting for us that it's "only a metaphor" and therefore "unlike the Israel article", etc. "a pattern of linguistic usage" indeed. that phrase alone oughta enter the wikipedia halls of verbal obfuscation. Gzuckier 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the statement by the Mayor did appear in a Guardian article: France wakes up to plight of its forgotten cities. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The posters glued above the entrance to the flats call on locals to join the fight against a state policy of "urban apartheid". [...] "Terms like urban apartheid are overdramatic," [Montpellier's socialist mayor, Hélène Mandroux,] said. "We recognise the problem and we are trying to deal with it, but this is not Johannesburg in the 1980s. Those are the two only and only two instances in the article where "apartheid" is mentioned. And this is supposed to be a source establishing widespread and scholarly allegations of systematic racial segregation by the French authorities?--Victor falk 18:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review straw man. I'm curious, how many comments do you and G-Dett plan to make on this AfD; will you be responding to every single vote and comment in favor of keeping the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, the problem is that you're foisting highly controversial material on diverse areas of Wikipedia, while refusing to consider whether it could be better covered under another title. Can you explain why this material can't fit under Social situation in the French suburbs, French rule in Algeria, and/or 2005 civil unrest in France? I so far haven't seen anyone address these points. As one benefit, while nobody appears to have actually responded to the allegations in this article, the existing examples are able to attempt a balanced look at the situation. Mackan79 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a split, the way to go is through the talk page, not an AFD.--Urthogie 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79, as I've explained to you before, I'm not "foisting" anything on anyone - there have been 10 of these articles, I created only one, and the material is arguably even more controversial in other articles than this one. As for the non ad hominem part of your statement, it would seem to apply equally well to every single article in the series, not just this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion is that it's a POV fork, which isn't an argument against Jay, but against the article. As to proper names, I don't see how that can possibly be determined across 10 articles. Social situation in the French suburbs strikes me as a surprisingly good fit, partially because I don't see that the allegations themselves have gained enough momentum to disrupt that article if properly weighed. The constant refusal and/or inability to defend this article on its own merits, though, but instead to demand contrasts with other articles, seems to me the major problem. Mackan79 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork? That's a new one. Quite odd for material that hasn't existed anywhere else, and that reasoning has been soundly rejected in previous AfDs on similar articles. Anyway, quite a number of people have stated why the article should be kept on its own merits; perhaps you should re-read their comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the AoIa debates, we entertained a number of suggestions for where to better cover the material, without any solid case being made. While some suggested an article on Human Rights in Israel or in the West Bank, it was pointed out that any adequate discussion of the apartheid debate would clearly disrupt such articles, while "Human Rights" also doesn't really cover the issues. Here, it seems that Social situation in the French suburbs is exactly on point, is neutral, and would fully allow for any apartheid discussion, while also solving the problem not seen in the AoIa article of an otherwise completely unanswered allegation. Can you imagine the Israel article, and the response, if it lacked any statement of disagreement with the analogy whatsoever? As I said, I'm not talking about your intentions, but if this title completely prevents a two-sided examination, and if a more appropriate article can hold the material, then it seems an open and shut case that this article should be deleted or merged as a POV fork. I have still yet to see a response. Also, I think you're incorrect that this has been rejected, as at least one of these articles was soundly deleted.[32] Mackan79 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about allegations of apartheid, though, not about the social situation in the French suburbs. Also, this article already contains opposing views. Regarding the argument being rejected, I was referring to more recent arguments. Actually, I wasn't even aware of that Australian article. It appears to have been deleted mostly because it was just a stub and wasn't properly developed. Fortunately, however, this article, while it still has room to grow, suffers from none of the flaws of that one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be about allegations of apartheid, but none of its sources is – except, for a split second, that thing about the mayor.--G-Dett 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in order to maintain consistency with other articles, pending a "global" resolution of the issue of "apartheid" articles, as discussed in the Arbitration Committee decision almost a year ago. I also think this discussion might go better without the personal attacks against the editors who created/worked on this article. 6SJ7 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guardian is a strong RS as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the comment from the mayor of Montpellier is misattributed doesn't mean it does not exist: France wakes up to plight of its forgotten cities. Chesdovi 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your reason for keeping? A single sourceable statement that's actually about the purported topic?--G-Dett 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 3 days old. Instead of voting to delete it, have you tried sourcing this subject further to bring it up to standard? Give it a chance! Chesdovi 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chesovi. I voted weak delete, and clarified that I'd support the article if serious editors came forward and made a serious case for it. I don't know much more about France than the authors of the article do, and I'm not aware of any notable discussion/debate about the topic among reliable sources. That, coupled with my experience of the two editors in question collaborating on frivolous articles that seriously abuse source materials in order to fight a bizarre rear-guard action against an article about Israel-Palestine, makes me skeptical. I am ready to be proven wrong. If evidence emerges that there is a notable, extensive discourse about alleged similarities between France and South Africa (as opposed to a miscellany of quotations on colonialism, urban poverty, gender relations within Islam, ethnic assimilation and secularism, and the headscarf controversy, each data-mined quote bejeweled with the searchword "apartheid", and arrayed together in a constellation of idiosyncratic pointlessness), then I'll happily eat my words and support the article.--G-Dett 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a frivolous nomination. The article is well-researched and contains copious sourcing, and concerns a subject (French racism) that is very much in the news every day. --Mantanmoreland 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what news channels you follow, that speak of French racism every single day.

Comment Quite a few people here just asserting that this article is well sourced or researched. I enjoin everybody to really check those sources, and see for themselves that they are mostly irrelevant. Eg, they do not in any meaningful manner claim and argue that the French government consciously makes systematic racial discrimination an official or unofficial policy.--Victor falk 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Urthogie altmany 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Allegations of Israeli apartheid per Jayjg. -- Y not? 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Humus Sapians. It is very POV to have articles accusing some countries of apartheid while not allowing a similar attacks against others. Allegations of apartheid is an attack against that country, and cannot be written in a neutral manner. The closest thing we can do to make it neutral is allow the allegations against every country. This is the only way to balance it out. Not to mention this article seems to be pretty well sourced.--Sefringle^Talk 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: has anyone else noticed this debate is already longer than the disputed article and its discussion page combined? --Targeman 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing compared to this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) or this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) or . Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this however is from Israel-Palestine-focused editors. It would be good to get more input from France-focused editors. Targeman, Victor falk, JulesH et al, is there a Wikiproject for France where you could post this?--G-Dett 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding your exquisitely ironic attempts to create two classes of "voters" on this AfD, it is unclear that "France-focused editors" would have any better an understanding of policy, nor is it clear that they would be any more neutral when it came to making these kinds of determinations. On the contrary, given the topic, one might expect them to be less neutral; indeed, their comments so far generally indicate that, User:Paris By Night's nearly inarticulate rant about "a collection of clichés and lies" when listing it being a good example. In any event, it has already been posted on the France Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I'm based in Belgium but I'm intimately familiar with France and the French press, from the Canard enchaîné to Le Figaro. Here is my, I believe, fairly objective summary of what's really going on in France:

Racial tensions exist and are due above all to the high level of unemployment in France (about 10%).
Racial hatred is expressed nearly exclusively toward Muslim immigrants. Although they are not the most numerous minority, they are the most visible and vocal and thus attract unwelcome attention.
France is arguably the most secular state in Europe. (Radical) Islam, indeed any in-your-face religious observance, is a major social faux-pas.
Ghetto warfare and the alleged "apartheid" are mostly limited to the overcrowded, low-income suburbs of large cities like Paris and Marseilles. Vast swaths of rural and small-town France remain free of any such tensions.
France has never allowed, tacitly or openly, any form of racial or national segregation. On the contrary: huge emphasis is placed on applying the same laws to everybody without accomodating anybody's religious or political sensibilities. The aim is a "melting pot" as opposed to the "patchwork" multiculturalism practiced in the UK and US. Whether the results so far are promising is debatable.

So there you are, this is what I had to say. The article's subject matter is valid but the title is not. Over to you. --Targeman 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is illuminating, Targeman, but with respect, the question of this article's legitimacy depends not on the validity of the "apartheid" comparison, but rather its notability. It depends, that is, on whether there is a prominent, notable, and enduring debate/discussion about alleged similarities between France and apartheid South Africa. The article in its current form obviously doesn't support this, but then the article in its current form has been written almost entirely by editors with little knowledge of or interest in France or civil-rights issues. So it's theoretically possible that there is a notable debate going on that they haven't been able to track down in their data-mining google searches. To get a sense of what the evidence for such a wide-ranging discussion and debate would look like, have a look at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The quality of the article at any given moment fluctuates wildly due to all the edit-warring, but the bibliography is pretty stable, and gives a good idea of what's missing from this article.--G-Dett 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism as a social debate in France is 100% notable. Try talking to a French person 5 minutes and the subject will be brought up. But apartheid? Nonsense. There is no such social debate. Well, maybe amongst Muslim immigrants themselves, but it's not mainstream and is totally absent from the French press. Which is not known for shying away from difficult debates. --Targeman 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ludo29 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, I'm french (and sorry for my english). Informations in this article could be preserved, I don't know. I speak only about linguistic. Nobody in France use this term of "apartheid" : nor for thoses mentioned facts neither for anything else in France. The use of the word "apartheid" has in France an unique meaning : qualify what's were in South Africa. The word "discrimination" is frequented used, for example to mention racism (in politically correct language), but this word also is used about handicap, gay, women and so on. So if the use of the word "apartheid" is correct in english language about french racial discrimination, ok, but if this use is to qualify a french expression for that, it is false; and wikipedia has not to create expression. Sincerely, --Epsilon0 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Allegations of American apartheid but I strongly suggest to exclude the propaganda by Le Pen and The Guardian from this article. It also needs more explanation, who alleges or accuses who and for what? There is no separate link to Islamists or French apartheid explaining things in plain English in this article. There is only a hint on Islamism but someone might mistake them for Moslems. greg park avenue 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break 1[edit]

Keep per jossi, and please, no attacks. Tewfik^Talk 08:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show some consideration for the template shown at the start of this discussion: If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia.--Victor falk 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move my comments. Per means I read the rationale, and agree with it, and do not want to duplicate it. Tewfik^Talk 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My expertise on France is limited to being born there, spending less than half the three decades I've lived there, and visiting relatives at most twice a year, but I concur with Targeman; though racism is one of the most vigorously discussed subjects in politics, that there would be a serious and notable debate in France about wether apartheid reigns is nonsensical. But this is irrelevant. This article has nothing to do with eventual apartheid in France. It has been created as a disinformation device in a propaganda war. Together with other articles in the same vein its purpose is to create white noise in which to drown one sides' allegations against the other. This is exactly the type of article that bring the worst kind of disrepute on Wikipedia, much worse that it has low quality, low standards, is error-prone, or simply biased: that it is helplessly captive to the gross attempts at manipulating public perception by the participants in some local middle eastern conflict. --Victor falk 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mu. I find the {{Allegations of apartheid}} "series" of articles extremely fishy and WP:POINTy in general; see G-Dett's comment above. Most of them focus on a stupid enumeration of instances "who compared the situation in country X with Appartheid". I recommend thorough re-reading of WP:SYN, and recent flood of deletions of "Anti-Fooian sentiment" articles on the basis of WP:SYN; I think I should add WP:LOOKHOWMANYSOURCES to WP:ATA. That being said, some of the contents of this article are salvageable, provided that the editors focus on legitimate issues of segregation problems in said countries (which are sometimes not even ethno-religiously based, see Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba). A casual glance over Google search for segregation in france reveals a lot of scholarly and serious analysis of Segregation in France, which is a) much less loaded and value-neutral term than Apartheid b) can be reasonably proven to exist as a real issue, even despite (or because) the government efforts. The term "segregation" is perhaps not ideal, but at least it does not have the connotation that the governments actively promote the separation. And it will remove the artificial, navel-gazing connection between various {{Allegations of apartheid}}, leaving the fate of each of respective articles to be resolved on its own merits. The "series" should be dissasembled. This one has merits but has a wrong focus. So, rename for the start; resolve the scoping problems against Social situation in the French suburbs. If not improved in that direction, submit to AfD again. Duja► 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I took a thorough read of the previous discussion after writing the above, largely for the purpose of not allowing myself to be biased. Upon reading, I fully endorse Mackan79 and G-Dett's comments on this being largely a POV-fork. In case it wasn't clear from my previous statement, I equally endorse merge to appropriate article(s), with their organization left upon editor's discretion. The title and the focus of this article are hugely inadequate, on several grounds WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK. Duja► 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is by far the most useful contribution to this discussion so far. I hereby rescind my vote of Delete and now endorse Mu. A detail: the allegations of apartheid could be rewritten to a disambiguation page pointing to Segregation in X, Y, Z,...--Victor falk 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite. I can only echo what Duja and Targeman have said, and I have to say that the creators of this article plainly know little and understand less about French social issues. I can't think of anyone in French politics or the media who uses the comparison. The issues of racism and social exclusion have a very high profile in French politics, so it's not exactly a hidden subject. This article seems to me to be a fairly desperate attempt to cobble together a number of random quotes to create a narrative that nobody with any familiarity with French politics would recognise. It's practically a case study in POV forking, synthesis and undue weight. Duja's suggestion of a way forward is very sensible (I would propose Social exclusion in France as an alternative title). On a personal note, I wish people here would stop misusing the term "apartheid" for POV reasons - it cheapens and degrades the memory of that inquitous system, much as it's insensitive and inappropriate to use "holocaust" as a generic term to refer to any act of mass killing or depopulation. -- ChrisO 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your last sentence, in fact it sounds a lot like something I said more than a year ago, on another talk page. If we could all agree to apply what you have said to all of the "allegations of apartheid" articles -- not counting the South African apartheid article -- then we would finally have a solution to the problem. We need to have consistency. 6SJ7 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to have artificial consistency. We may both dislike the abuse of the term "apartheid", and we may both agree that it's inappropriate to use the term in relation to Israel, but the fact is that those allegations are extremely widely made and extensively sourced (see G-Dett's comments of 16:31 17 July 2007, above). In other words, there's already a noteworthy pre-existing narrative for us to document. That's plainly not the case in this article, which is just an exercise in quote-mining to support an original synthesis produced by Urthogie - the very thing that WP:OR is supposed to prohibit. -- ChrisO 00:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ChrisO, nice try at explaining the distinction, but I don't buy it. Certainly more has been written about the term's use in relation to Israel than about France, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind. If one is a POV fork, original synthesis, etc., then so is the other. As part of an article on human rights and/or discrimination in each country, a discussion of the use of the term would not be an issue. Obviously that section might be a bit larger for some countries than for others. But once there is an insistence on a separate article for one country, it is inevitable that there are going to be corresponding articles for some other countries. 6SJ7 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and why not : "let's keep all bad articles as is for consistency, since wikipedia contains some bad articles". Not constructive. Benjamin.pineau 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry for my bad English, I'm French. It seems it's only a minor interpretation of the situation in French suburbs, made by very few experts. IMHO these interpretations may be mentioned in Social situation in the French suburbs, but don't deserve a specific article. --Bsm15 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite. I can't improve on what Duja and ChrisO have said - I think they have hit the nail on the head. - Mu 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply because there are no such allegations of apartheid in France. Google "french apartheid" (exact phrase) gives 151 hits, and on french version of Google "apartheid français" gives 221 hits... That's an ideological spam. Gedefr 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete'. Another exemple of anti-French POV on the English wikipedia. It sounds like all quotes where France and apartheid were both present have been put in this article without caring if it was just irrelevant. This is sad to see that much POV here. HOW DARE YOU COMPARING THE FRENCH SITUATION TO SOUTH-AFRICAN APARTHEID AND US SEGREGATION (have you heard about "Jena 6" in the US ?) ? There is NO SEGREGATION LAW, NO APARTHEID LAW IN FRANCE (actually you don't even have the right to make statistics based on ethnicity). Furthermore, this isn't fun because this article is clearly instrumentalized in an edit war by Jews and anti-Jews. Apparently, another article has been written about Israel and thus Isrealian want the "French" article to be linked to the serie in order to have theirs deleted as well. Poppypetty 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you Frogs are touchy ;) Just kidding. "Apartheid" pisses me off, too. --Targeman 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete all articles in the series per Jossi. Apartheid happenned in one place - South Africa. Anyone else using that term is both ignorant and also degrading that issue. Can someone tell me if there was apartheid in Nazi Germany? Please don't mix-up apartheid and discrimination. Keep all or nothing. --Shuki 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Apartheid" is a South African term, but it has existed under other names in Nazi Germany, in the USA, in the Occupied Territories (Jewish settlements in Palestine), and in many other places and times. --Targeman 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and on these articles, the phenomenon is called by its proper name. Just like the article on the segregationist in South Africa in, appropriately, called "apartheid" rather than "South African Shoah", or some Godwin-inspired slur. Rama 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no connection with reality, as clearly demonstrated by the abysmal number and quality of notes and references. Also, the title of the article is provocative and does not match any commonly used expression. Rama 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am appalled to see that User:Urthogie himself created

Allegations of Brazilian apartheid (27 March 2007)
Allegations of American apartheid (4 June 2007)
Allegations of Chinese apartheid (13 July 2007)
Allegations of French apartheid (14 July 2007)
and even Template:Allegations of apartheid (27 March 2007).

Thanks to his efforts, we now have a whole category of highly disruptive articles based on vague allusions, and vituperation by a handful of ill-informed polemists. I strongly advise blasting this lot, and probably also the other members of the "Apparetheid outside of South Africa" series not created by Urthogie. Rama 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : With this serie (can't wait to read what's next), we can say that Wikipedia English is publishing anything, no need to be relevant and exact... no wonder why you guys have almost 2 millions articles! Regarding this marvellous serie of articles, guess that you'll have (once again) the world against you! Pitiful!

This is sadly true for low-profile articles on political or sociological subjects, especially relating to some particularly tricky subjects like the Middle-East, cults, etc a few others. On the other hand, the quality of high-profile articles on en: tends to be good because they are polished by lots of people, and because people who have first-hand knowledge of the matter can contribute.

As a matter of fact, this very request for deletion is a rather encouraging symptom. What is less encouraging is seeing people swallowing irrelevant sources, counting external links and deeming the article "appropriately sourced" without regard for the relevance of these sources. But occosional failure of proper critical judgement is not specific to en:. Rama 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as well as all similar articles. Apartheid refers to a specific historical period of South Africa, with certain laws with de jure legal discrimination between whites and other skin colors. This article does not deal with South Africa, does not deal with de jure discrimination, but is a list of opinions on de facto discrimination in present-day France. At best, it should be renamed/folded into something like "ethnic and religious discrimination in France". In addition, I note that it consists mostly of long-winded opinions; this is non encyclopedic. David.Monniaux 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is nonsense. Thierry Caro 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more comment, it's better, I could be coarse. --ArséniureDeGallium 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recycle the content. There seems to be no point in making an article on a subject that does not exist. Even a cursory analysis of the article and of the sources allows to see that if the word "apartheid" has been used in certain debates or essays about certain issue in France, it was merely as a striking and powerful metaphor. For instance Ramadan, who speaks of "territorial and social apartheid" because "certain French citizens are treated as second-class citizens". Another refers to "The modernist housing experiments of the sixties have produced apartheid du Corbusier". And so on, it is just about using apartheid as a word that appears to be more striking than another one that can be find in the article and that is probably more correct: "ghettoization ". Bottomline is that this article is building a concept out of the blue based on the use of a word in political debates about the ghettoization of certain areas in France, with the purpose to develop about the responsibility of Islam in the issue (note the very large extracts that are a bit too large). Bradipus 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About time I took a specific position. The more I think about this article, the more I find it artificial and biased. Plus, User:Urthogie's editing pattern convinces me he or she knows precious little about what (s)he's writing about. --Targeman 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Urthogie and jossi et al. I've said elsewhere regarding these sort of "apartheid" articles that I'm not crazy about them period. However, the nom and delete votes in this case looks like simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The article is properly sourced, and is perfect alignment with the other similar articles. I haven't read a good explanation why an exception should be made in this case. I'd also ask that the "deletionists" in this case try and ease up on the ad hominem arguments. They're poor and don't work. <<-armon->> 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Racial tensions are a fact of life in France and only an idiot would try to deny it. What irks me (and what you take for an ad hominem argument) is that the author of the article is politically motivated (see those other "apartheid" articles) and writes about complex questions concerning a country he or she doesn't know. I firmly believe you should refrain from writing articles on such extremely sensitive issues if you don't speak the language (no sources in French!) and have never spent any significant amount of time in the country. I don't write articles about the Kashmir conflict. Why? Don't speak the language, never been there. Sure I've read a lot about it. Does that make me feel sufficiently informed to write an encyclopedia article? No way. So back on topic, at the very least the contents of this article should be merged with an appropriate one, and the terribly misguided word "apartheid" dropped altogether. --Targeman 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not properly sourced. It is all too obvious that the article was started with the idea "I am going to prove that there is something about Apartheid in France no matter what", and a posteriori collected articles which happened to contain theboth the words "France" and "Apartheid", without regard for accurately citing the spirit of the article, not taking into account the notability of these articles. In fact, the mere scarcety of the sources should be enough to convince anyone that there is not such thing as a debate on "Apartheid in France", given that those who are desperate to claim there is one have to resource to such thin references. Rama 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you read ad hominem arguments by deletionists ? As Rama, Targeman, Bradipus, etc. have pointed out there is simply no allegation of apartheid in France, period. This article is a complete fiction, and has no source relevant to its subject. WP deals with the real world, not with the fantasies of Urthogie and the like.Gedefr 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "no source relevant to the subject"; every single source in the article alleges apartheid by France, and they're all reliable. A number are by academics, and some are French sources; Le Monde Diplomatique for example. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what I mean : no source. For instance, your quote from Le Monde Diplomatique is completely measleading : the author refers to a process of ghettoisation, and uses the word apartheid only once in the text, and only as a metaphor, as the adjectif urban (urban apartheid), makes it clear. That's even clearer if you read the article of Laurent Bonelli to wich he refers to when using the words urban apartheid: Bonelli does not use at all the word apartheid, and does not event think that the riot where the product of racism -but of the decline of the french working class as a whole. So, we are left with a few quotes (some perfectly measleading as Le Monde, where the author denonces the supposedly multiculturalism produced anglo-saxon apartheid). And for a good reason: there is no such accusation of apartheid in France. Once more : just google "french apartheid" or "apartheid français" (exact phrase) and you'll get less than 300 hits...Gedefr 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of them use the word "apartheid," in most cases once only, never again mentioning it or South Africa. The article weaves these fifteen data-mined quotes into an original research essay about a supposed linguistic trend detected by two Wikipedians.--G-Dett 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apartheid is a strong word, with a very special meaning. Nothing to do with France, yesterday or today... Clio64B 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've re-organized a bunch of the material to create a more coherent flow, and added other reliable sources with interesting viewpoints on the subject. I encourage everyone to read and re-assess the material in that light, particularly all the French editors who have recently joined at the invitation of the French Wikiproject, and who seem to be taking this all very personally. Please try to adopt a more impartial and less emotional view, if possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel-focused editors can teach y'all to be more impartial and less emotional about these things.--G-Dett 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a flaky compendium of out-of-context quotes that has been spun into an original synthesis for political reasons completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Quite honestly, Jay, neither you nor Urthogie are doing yourselves any favours when you pretend that you've suddenly acquired an interest in French social policy; the arrival of the usual clique of (pro-)Israeli partisans all voting in lockstep with you shows rather clearly what's going on here. There may be some salvageable content in the article that could be repurposed elsewhere, but let's not fool ourselves that this is anything other than a continuation of the silly political games concerning your objections to the existence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. -- ChrisO 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, would it be possible for you to refrain from making ad hominem statements in future comments? Please leave the POV political analysis and negative characterizations of those who you disagree with for the various Wikipedia attack message boards. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

OK guys, here comes an in-depth analysis of the article's sources, each and every one of them. Nothing but cold, hard facts. Grab a beer and enjoy:

Sources 1,2, and 3 refer exclusively to colonial-era France. Needless to say that colonial discrimination half a century ago and modern French society have precious little in common.
Source 4 says “urban apartheid”, and only once, in its title. Read what it’s really talking about. Quote: “lifetimes of rampant unemployment, school failure, police harassment, and everyday racist discrimination… regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion.” That has nothing to do with apartheid, as any first-year history student will tell you.
Wow, racism regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion ! That's rather original. Rama 08:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source 5: same thing. “Social apartheid”. This is a metaphor as above. Please look up “metaphor” in a dictionary.
Source 6: dead link.
Source 7. Quote: ““Some of these individuals will likely find work in the underground economy and will continue to have poor long-term prospects as the law of unintended consequences continues to discourage French employers to take the risk and employ marginal workers,” he says. Hutchison adds that in this sense, France will continue to mirror apartheid-era South Africa”. That’s like saying that because I’m vegetarian, in a sense I live like a Hindu.
Source 8. Quote: “"We will have a sort of apartheid," says Kepel. "Everyone will be proud to defend his own identity — I am a Muslim, I am a Christian, I am a Jew first. And then a Frenchman, second. This is not acceptable.’’ Do you call this an allegation of apartheid?
Source 9. Quote: “France cannot be 'a juxtaposition of communities', must be founded on common values and must not follow the Anglo-Saxon model which allows ethnic groups to barricade themselves inside geographical and cultural ghettos leading to 'soft forms of apartheid'”. 1989. Anything more solid and recent perhaps?
Source 10. Quote: “The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.” Please read that again. (Side note, different subject: this is a source from Saudi Arabia. How low do you have to stoop to get your sources? This source is 100% controlled by a theocratic dictatorship.)
Source 11 and 12. Please read them. These are about Muslims retreating into self-imposed “apartheid”.
Source 13. “Urban apartheid”. Notice how apartheid never stands alone in any of these sources? It’s a metaphor.
Source 14: subscribers only. Thanks a lot.
Source 15. “Apartheid du Corbusier”. I assume you’re not familiar with Le Corbusier. Please look him up, come back, and tell me what it is about.
Source 16. Quote: “Montpellier's socialist mayor, Hélène Mandroux, denied that her authority had been slow to help. "Terms like urban apartheid are overdramatic," she said." Need I say more?

To conclude: not a single one of this article's sources contains any sort of allegation of segregation policies of the French state toward anybody. I rest my case. Thanks for reading. --Targeman 00:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your analysis, I'd say that the sources are using "apartheid" solely as a shorthand or metaphor for social exclusion. Would this be a fair summary, in your view? -- ChrisO 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. --Targeman 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense, as soon as possible. I trust that whomever closes this discussion will take into account the transparent vote-stacking among those favouring retention. CJCurrie 00:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the closer of the discussion take into account just this alleged "transparent vote-stacking among those favouring retention", or should he/she also take into account the explicit and shameless canvassing and recruiting of votes by those favoring deletion? Isarig 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless vote-stacking? More like inviting debate from people who may be familiar with the subject. Is this prohibited/discouraged? And no, nobody should take into account anything but the facts. The number of people voting is irrelevant: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion --Targeman 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there's an important difference between inviting knowledgeable people and inviting non-knowledgeable partisans to make up the numbers. Actual French people tend to have a rather more informed perspective than non-European partisans playing silly buggers. -- ChrisO 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also think that Actual Israelis have a "more informed perspective" on issues like, oh, say, Allegations of Israeli apartheid than "non-Israeli partisans playing silly buggers"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the focus of the dispute is completely different. See my reply to 6SJ7 below. -- ChrisO 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, but I have to disagree. Attempts to create two classes of "voters" on this AfD, and, indeed, two classes of countries to which the "apartheid meme" is applied are a marvellous, yet unsustainable, irony. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Israelis are more informed for that precise article. But why the hell do people keep talking about Israel in this page ??? This country has nothing to do with the article we're talking about. What's that mess ? Let's not add further confusion, please. Benjamin.pineau 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, that's harsh, man.--Targeman 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But accurate enough, I think. I should add (per CJCurrie's comment) that I'm not aware of any evidence that people have been trying to rope in partisans, though a fair number of them certainly seem to have ended up here somehow. Off-wiki communications, perhaps. -- ChrisO 02:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Targeman about "vote counting") For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion does not say that the number of people expressing opinions on one side or another is irrelevant. (I avoid the word "voting" so as not to upset the purists among us.) That guideline (and it is only a guideline, and a somewhat contested one at that) contains a section on "Deletion, moving and featuring" that specifically says that an AfD (or similar process) "is not decided based strictly on the number of people choosing one side or another, but on the strength of the arguments presented." So it's not decided strictly on the basis of numbers, but numbers surely are not irrelevant to the outcome. They are one of the factors that is taken into consideration. 6SJ7 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. --Targeman 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to ChrisO about "actual French people) So let's see if I have this straight, ChrisO. For the corresponding article on Israel, we should just rely on the sources, but for this one, the opinions of the people from the country in question should get more weight? How about following the same set of criteria for each article? 6SJ7 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two aren't comparable, because they're starting from different points. In the case of Israel, nobody disputes that there's a widespread, well-documented meme that compares Israel to apartheid South Africa. The nature of the political dispute is over whether the accusation is justified, not whether anyone makes it. In the case of France, however, a "French apartheid" meme simply isn't part of the political discourse. Our French editors are best placed to advise us on whether such a meme exists in French politics - to which they're exposed every day, don't forget - and so far they've unanimously said no. That's the difference. In the case of Israel, Wikipedia describes an existing meme that's been widely discussed in numerous reliable source - there are even entire books about it. In the case of France, Urthogie has invented a non-existent meme and "documented" it with out-of-context quotes mined from Google. It's pure original reseach. -- ChrisO 07:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that the French editors aren't making that argument at all. Rather, they are simply outraged that anyone would use the "meme" in relation to "la belle France"; their national pride is insulted. On the other hand, more dispassionate French authors and academics are much more comfortable using that "meme". And the "meme" is a general one, used in relation to all sorts of situations of alleged discrimination; it's not an "Israeli" meme alone. Now, it's true that the meme is used more often in relation to Israel, but that's a reflection of the currently fashionable demonization of Israel, based partly on ignorance, partly on geo-politics, partly on good marketing efforts by Palestinians, and partly on much darker forces. Regardless, there is an apartheid "meme" or "analogy" or "epithet" that is in common used in regards to all sorts of things, and it's no more nor less valid in any one situation than in any other. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outraged because "apartheid" insults "la belle France"? Nonsense. First of all, why the hell are you people bringing up Israel here? What does that have to do with France? Secondly, I'm not French and I have no ax to grind here, although your last comment strongly suggests you do. The article we're discussing is a perfect example of selective sourcing meant to support a theory. It insults me as someone who knows France and who knows what good writing is to read an article written on a high school level and defended by emotionally charged, non-scientific arguments. --Targeman 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I used to be a teacher at college. If any student of mine were to submit such a shamelessly ill-sourced paper, boy would I have savaged him. --Targeman 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you used to be a teacher (I think they call them professors or lecturers). Certainly it is obvious that a notable litany of allegations of apartheid have been sourced. It is for our readers to decide the merits, but that is a content issue, not a reason to delete. If you are so preocupied with quality, you can chose Allegations of Jordanian apartheid, whose sources are certainly not notable or even relevant. And teh few that are belong in Allegations of apartheid.--Cerejota 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only a teacher (or lecturer if you will), but a journalist, interpreter, and researcher, if you feel like questioning my qualifications. Language is my trade and calling this list of completely distorted arguments a "notable litany of allegations"... No, I'll not comment on this.--Targeman 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I am preoccupied by quality. The article you mentioned is badly sourced right now but is infinitely more plausible than an article about allegations of "apartheid" in France. The situation in Palestinian refugee camps bears no comparison to living on dole in France, I'm sure you're aware of that. Now would you care to address my analysis of this article's sources? --Targeman 02:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you qualifications are relevant why? However, since you have indeed addressed the matter at hand, I must point out that your WP:OR is not supported by sources. It is your opinion, but ultimately irrelevant to wikipedia. If a source like Le Monde diplomatique can spend time dealing with these allegations as they apply to France, then they have merit. You are making an unsupported claim that flies in the face of sources. I suggest you take it up with Le Monde diplomatique, not us. I am sure your credentials would come handy over by them. --Cerejota 02:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. I'd never dream of questioning the reliability and independence of Le Monde Diplomatique. In fact, it's one of the best French publications available. And I've never accused this article of being original research. The author(s) have clearly invested time and effort to source the article properly. Here is what I'm talking about: the word "apartheid" is used in each of these sources as either a metaphor or in a context which has nothing to do with the definition of the word "apartheid". There is no allegation of apartheid here. What we have are grievances concerning the integration of foreigners (more specifically, Muslims), into French society. That could be a viable article (if it weren't so one-sided, but that could be improved). However, this haphazard collection of - once again - mostly solid sources, but whose choice was dictated only by the word "apartheid", really doesn't justify the title. It's like saying "USA is a fascist country". Go ahead and Google it. 2,600,000 hits for USA + fascism. Among the sources mentioning both words in one article, you'll find the Guardian and the University of Texas, among others. Are you beginning to see what happened here? Cheers --Targeman 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of the article clearly state the the use is as analogy, not as direct comparison, so this is recognized a priori. It explores the policies of the French state (current and historical) that have been notably analogized with apartheid. Along with the Israel and Brazil articles, the French one is actually one of the better ones in the whole sorry lot. Why delete this one while keeping around aberrations like the United States and China around? The Francophilia is running way too thick...--Cerejota 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction talks about analogies with South African apartheid. There is not a single analogy of this kind in the sources provided. And none of the sources talks about any French policy that would in any way resemble South African policies under apartheid. If I'm wrong, please correct me. And please, let's try to judge this article on its own merits. I haven't read the others. I'm not interested in the consistency of deletion policy; I'm concerned by the intellectual honesty of this article. Its contents have nothing in common with its title or summary. It is simply misleading. And it's a shame that you mistake objectivity for Francophilia.--Targeman 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Any volunteers to address my analysis, point after point?--Targeman 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why would there be anyone interested in this? It is, as you say "your analysis" - in other words original research, which is entirely irrelevant. Isarig 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, aren't you? In case you haven't understood, I mean: who is willing to challenge the validity of my arguments? I have read the article multiple times and all of the sources, from A to Z. If nobody steps up to prove me wrong, we shall have to conclude that nobody is seriously interested in discussing the merits of this article. And I have reasons to believe I'm the only one here who's actually took the time to read it all. I'm too old to engage in childish tug-o-wars and name calling. Once again: serious people, raise your hands please.--Targeman 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments boil down to "they're using it as a metaphor". Well, duh! Of course it's used as a metaphor; only South Africa actually had a policy of apartheid, in all other contexts it's a metaphor, analogy, epithet, etc. Your "analysis" applies equally well to all the "Allegations of apartheid" articles, and you don't even need to look at the sources to know that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's an enormous difference between accusing a government of apartheid-like policies and comparing the social conditions of a country to South Africa under apartheid. "Allegations of apartheid" means "accusations of apartheid-like policies". Now, were this article named "Comparisons between life in France and life in South Africa under apartheid", that would be consistent with its content. But hey, I can think of at least 150 countries where one could draw such comparisons. Are there 150 articles like this in the pipeline? --Targeman 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the sources make clear that it is indeed government policies that have created this situation; first, the rather obviously apartheid-like colonial policies in Algeria, and then their transference to France, where, As such, the colonial dual cities described by North African urban theorists Janet Abu-Lughod, Zeynep Çelik, Paul Rabinow, and Gwendolyn Wright—in which native medinas were kept isolated from European settler neighborhoods out of competing concerns of historical preservation, public hygiene, and security—have been effectively re-created in the postcolonial present, with contemporary urban policy and policing maintaining suburban cités and their residents in a state of immobile apartheid, at a perpetual distance from urban, bourgeois centers. Apartheid is a policy of separation, impoverishment, class difference, etc., typically linked to "race". The Africans forced into suburban cités by French government policies experience all of those things as a result of government policy. Well, at least according to the sources. On the other hand, opposing views are brought as well (per NPOV). Some sources insist that the apartheid is a self-imposed one. Others say various other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{Shit, we're cornering ourselves}All you've mentioned is indeed true. The problem is, the article's title doesn't reflect all this. If you want to discuss segregation in the French colonies, create a separate article. If you want to compare that period with the supposed segregation nowadays, call your article History of racial segregation in France. As for self-imposed apartheid, it's not apartheid, just like choking on a pretzel is not the same as being strangled. If you want to discuss the social phenomenon of withdrawal or seclusion, create a separate article. If you want to write about Islamism in France, create an appropriately titled article. If you want to discuss the influence of brutalist urbanism on living standards, create an article to that effect. This article mixes all these things into one big bag and gives it the name of only one of the subjects discussed. It's like having an article called Dogs which discusses dogs, cats, hamsters, and zoophilia, all on one page.--Targeman 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{moving back to the left side of the page}Targeman, those who object to the "apartheid" analogy/metaphor/meme/epithet always insist that it is inappropriate for reasons x, y, and z. In every single country and situation to which it is applied (aside from South Africa itself), there is always a counter-argument that says "yes, but don't you see that it's a bad analogy in this case because...", and "really this topic should be discussed more rationally and neutrally in articles a, b and c". It's as true for Brazil, China, Cuba, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States as it is for France. And the solution you propose works equally well for all of the articles in this series. However, based on my experience on about 10 related AfDs, it seems so far that the will of Wikipedians is to avoid that solution. Maybe you'll have more success. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my solution applies equally well to all the articles you mention. If the "will" of Wikipedian is to avoid that solution, as you say, more should be done to convince. The problem sure won't go away if we pretend there is none. Maybe that's what the authors of this infamous series actually want - to be left alone and write their drivel in peace and blissful ignorance. And you know what? I'm so tired of this shit, I'm tempted to drop it and let them play in their sandbox. --Targeman 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, don't lose heart here Targeman; you've gotten much farther here than ever before. Even some of the worst of the POV-pushers who defended the inflammatory titles and articles in the past seem to be coming around to a more reasonable approach, though some are still fighting a valiant rear-guard action in defense of "equal but separate" treatment for one specific article. However, ignoring their inevitable furious fulminations and ad hominem analyses, and focussing on a solution, might well solve this once and for all. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Targeman, the authors of this infamous series don't want to be left alone to write more drivel. They want their drivel to enrage people to the point of proposing to delete everything that resembles, however superficially, their drivel. The strategy is to create as many bogus "apartheid" articles as possible, in the hopes that the resulting gooey blob of verbal muck will envelop an article they're opposed to (but have been unsuccessful in deleting) in its deathly embrace. Please have a long look at that article, Targeman, I implore you. If you're tired of the sh!?-stupid strawman arguments you've been subjected to on this page about French sensitivity and national feeling, as well as all the sophistry that tries to alchemize an original thesis about the use of language into a notable topic, and primary sources into secondary ones, then just imagine the sophistry and strawman-arguments you're being bombarded with in regards to the original article. That article, unlike the fake "sister" articles, has a subject. --G-Dett 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that this situation sparks from the deplorable habit of making articles out of propaganda terms without the slightest critical distance, which is common on Middle-East-related articles. Typical instances are Allegations of Israeli apartheid (anti-Israel POV) or New antisemitism (Isaeli right-wing POV). These articles share the pattern of commenting on outrageous concepts with no proper definition, and spinning out of control (One day, someone will start a Berlin Wall of Israel and noone will find the geographical absurdity disturbing).

The root of the evil is in the failure of distancing self from the propaganda lexical field and isolating the substencial meaning. For instance, the so-called "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" are, in fact, accusations of segregationist policies, Human Right violations, or something like this. That these criticism happened to be formulated using the word "apartheid" is barely relevent: it is maybe footnote-worthy, sub-section-worthy at most, but certainly not a proper title.

Only taking the surface words into consideration is stupid, worthy of first-generation search engines. It is failure to address the problem at its root which causes the present annoyance. Generating bogus articles which contain only noise out of exasperation is human, but it is unacceptable. Rama 10:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break 2[edit]

Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm french and honestly I have never heard such a thing about France. It's a pure WP:POINT in reaction of the page Allegations of Israeli apartheid... Markadet fr 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Sefringle^Talk 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this is not founded and discriminatory. Apartheid is a very strong word and NEVER in my french history I had to read something like that. The person who wrote all apartheid articles don't know much about history, and sources are questionnable! Have a nice vote... --Antaya 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Sefringle^Talk 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.T.W., where are Germany, England, Portugal, Spain, Danmark... Every country have blood on their hands. It's pretty easy to write something like this based on questionnable sources... --Antaya 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the sources are highly reliable, and include noted academics among others. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think "Apartheid" is an appropriate word for explaining the integration problems in France (or anywhere else in the world)... and espacially on Wikipedia! Everywhere you can hear about xenophobia : shall we call that apartheid? I think the title is not appropriated. --Antaya 06:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, regardless of whether or not you like it, reliable sources actually use the term, and various Wikipedia editors have already insisted that the will of Wikipedia is that these articles have that word in the title. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no consensus that "these articles" are properly grouped together in the first place: no one has ever produced a single reliable source supporting the linkage, many editors have explicitly rejected it as a transparent POV ploy, and a recent TfD discussion on precisely this question ended acrimoniously in "no consensus." So to talk about "these articles" is already begging the question. But I'm curious anyway, where do "various Wikipedia editors" insist this about the "will of Wikipedia"?--G-Dett 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, apartheid and segregation imply that the state is involved in the discrimination. This isn't the case. This discrimination is a really complex problem where they aren't guilty people and organizations at one side and "immigrant" victims at the other one. They are responsible for part of it and the state is responsible for other reasons. Why not writing a good Discrimination issues in France instead ? Poppypetty 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are absolutely irrelevant and not reliable. Nowadays, you can source every single stupid idea if you want to. As mentioned above, you can create an article on Allegations that USA is (are ?) a facist country with The Guardian and University of Texas sources. That doesn't make the article relevant. This is disastrous to see people making POV-pushing here. Let's try to create quality content. Poppypetty 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youa re saying a former Prime Minister of France is not a reliable source? Le Monde diplomatique? The things people will say when they want to push POV...--Cerejota 12:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed absurd; not only the sources you mentioned, but also notable academics who study and write on exactly these issues have used the analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once each, in passing. There's no indication whatsoever that their use of it was notable or even noted.--G-Dett 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High quality, relevant sources, interesting topic, should not be censored just because people don't like it. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a matter of liking it or not. It's more a question of relevancy and accuracy. Poppypetty 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's a caracteristical french bashing, on a allegation which does not recover any reality in France. For the one who will probably comment with a WP:IDONTKNOWIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I will answer : IKNOWTHISISALIE and ICANNOTSUPPORTSUCHINSANITIES. To be a little more bit serious WP:POINT, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and, most of all, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Grimlockfr 11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There might be french bashing in the article, but most of it is provided by French sources.Thats the gist of it. There is no original research and your argument and similar arguments are invalid in so far as all material is sourced and balanced. I think we can fix the quotefarm and re-write a bit, but this article far from bashing France, touches upon a notable debate. Those who have commented they have never heard of the debate in France are either ill-informed or disingenuous: as sourced, even French prime ministers have see fit to address the analogy.--Cerejota 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. That there's a notable debate and that it's a central part of French politics is undeniable. It's just that the title is absolutely ignorant. Racism, social exclusion, integration. Rename the article. Apartheid? Nonsense. "Urban apartheid" and "social apartheid" have nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with apartheid in South Africa, as I would expect any high school graduate to know. The article's defendants argue the sources are reliable (well, they're silent on the Saudi source). Sure. But for Chrissakes please read those sources. If after reading them, you're still able to say without blushing that they contain serious allegations of apartheid-like policies, you belong in politics, not in academia. A reliable source per se is not enough; it has to directly concern the topic of your article (paper, dissertation). If you're arguing that there are allegations of apartheid, choose sources that say so. If you're writing about, I don't know, paper manufacturing, don't use sources talking about Greenpeace, deforestation, or sustainable development. It's intellectually dishonest and will not make you pass the exams. Class dismissed. --Targeman 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that the reliable sources chose to use exactly the term "apartheid", and the apartheid analogy. "Dismissing" the "class" will not make that inconvenient fact go away, and that fact also make hash of any claim that the sources do not "directly concern the topic of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article is "allegations of French apartheid." None of the sources deal with that topic at all, except the one with the thing about the mayor.--G-Dett 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and respectable sources also use words like "fuck" and "bullshit". How about Allegations of fucking bullshit in XXX? You could very easily find respectable sources using both in one article. Would such an article pass your scrutiny? Would you then find that kind of argument valid? --Targeman 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"and the apartheid analogy." -> analogy, you named it, and that's the point (for every article's source). But the article isn't titled "Analogies between France's social situation and apartheid". As is, the title states that we're talking about true apartheid. Well, even it would be retitled as such, how much strongly POV (if not insulting and xenophobic) articles should we introduce everytime a journalist made a catching metaphor ? Benjamin.pineau 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is equally applicable to any of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles; you should be thinking of systemic solutions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I said my judgment applies to all "Allegations of apartheid" articles (see my "delete" statements). Deleting all of them is indeed the preferable achievement. I just can't see how them being all bad would justify to keep that one. Benjamin.pineau 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is a debate about discrimination, ghettoization, not about apartheid or segregation which are irrelevant. I just don't see the point about this article which is just a succession of quotes without real analysis of the discrimination phenomena. Poppypetty 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that these sources are misrepresented. Twisting references and making up connections between unconnected sources is Original Resarch (to be polite). And for your information, Le Monde Diplomatique is a heavily op-ed paper which occasionally runs totally ludicrous stories. Rama 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, this is just what we need... more inherently POV crap. At least move the article to something less inflammatory. Apartheid has a very distinct meaning and those who know it would be deeply disgusted by attempts to compare debates over scarfs to that. That said, I'm not sure what is causing the most harm... AfD'ing these articles or denying the trolls who edit them the recognition. Judging from past AfD's the best approach is just to ignore them at let them have their precious articles. MartinDK 11:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article is very well cited. It has multiple sources and it is notable. The nomination fails to prove why this article should be deleted. And per User:Sefringle. Watchdogb 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per Watchdogb Harlowraman 06:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination clearly proves that the "multiple sources" are irrelevant. Sourcing is not about listing as many random external links as possible. Rama 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The important points are not all in the nomination, but have to do with whether this is the proper name for the article. Considering most of these sources use the word only in passing in their discussion of broader issues that are neutrally covered in other articles (chiefly Social situation in the French suburbs), WP:NPOV#POV_forks seems to directly apply ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.") Mackan79 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Who says there are random external links ? I am sorry but I do know the difference between source and EL. Thanks. Proper name for the article does not permit a AFD. It's better off at RFM. Watchdogb 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do say that the external links are random. They just happen to be random documents gathered over the Internet containing the lemma "apartheid". This behaviour is worthy of a very small Perl script. Rama 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example: we don't yet have Allegations of Swiss apartheid ? No problem, search "apartheid in Switzerland" and you'll come up with something. Like, for instance, ""Denunciations coming from South Africa directly led to the aliens’ police acting against people criticising apartheid in Switzerland," Hug said." [33]. The so-called "references" of Allegations of French apartheid are of the same nature (and probably the result of the same procedure). Rama 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the right name, that's not correct when the neutral article on the subject already exists. Jay has basically admitted that the Social situation in the French suburbs is the subject;[34] he simply wants to keep this particular name. Unless there is some new subject here, then deletion is the appropriate remedy. Mackan79 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no I haven't. Please don't put words in my mouth again, especially when they misrepresent my views. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you described the topic of this article, and in describing it, you described the situation in the French suburbs by name.[35] You also still have not explained why this material couldn't fit into that article, other than to beg the question by saying that this article is about the allegation. I don't care to spar with you; if you want to clarify why these sources require a new article specifically on this one allegation, then please do. Mackan79 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, your argument is equally applicable to all the "Allegations of apartheid..." articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that doesn't clarify the issue. For one thing, you may have noticed that the Israel article has many times more and much more detailed sources than this one, which would generally be an important factor in whether an independent article is necessary. You may also have noticed that Social situation in the Israeli suburbs isn't an article, nor Social unrest in Israel in 2005. So should they be? This seems to be the crux of your argument. Mackan79 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really does clarify the issue. The fact that there are more sources for the Israel article is, as explained above, a reflection of the currently fashionable demonization of Israel, based partly on ignorance, partly on geo-politics, partly on good marketing efforts by Palestinians, and partly on much darker forces. In any event, the "delete" arguments here boil down to two: 1) I'm outraged you would accuse France of this, and 2) France doesn't really practice apartheid, it's only an metaphor/analogy/meme. I'm ignoring, of course, the plentiful ad hominem statements from the usual suspects, speculating about motivations, trying to divide editors into 2 classes, etc., as they are irrelevant to AfDs (and, frankly, to Wikipedia). Of the actual arguments, the first is merely an emotional reaction, and the second applies to all these articles, including the Israel one, regardless of whether there are 16 sources or 160.

Ideally Wikipedia articles should be about encyclopedic concepts expressed in neutral ways. When it comes to articles on politics or history, a good yardstick is "would Britannica have an article on this topic"? Of course Britannica would never have an article on "Allegations of Israeli apartheid"; anyone proposing such a non-scholarly, obviously politicized POV-pushing notion would, at best, be dismissed with a sneer, regardless of the political beliefs of the editors. Frankly, it's a greater embarrassment to Wikipedia than 5,000 crufty articles on Pokemon. Yet, the usual POV-pushers insist on its existence, using the usual spurious arguments which, in reality, fool no-one, not even themselves. That article is, in fact, by far the worst of the "Allegations of apartheid" series, far worse than this one, because it takes 10,000 poorly-written words to say what could be said more clearly in two or three paragraphs, and because its silly POV-pushing agenda is so nakedly transparent. In, for example, the Cuban apartheid article, the people who invented the term "tourist apartheid" were Cubans themselves, and they're the ones who use it, so discussing the topic is not an "anti-Cuban" ploy. Oh, and in case you were wondering, Britannica actually does mention "tourist apartheid" in its Cuba article.

In any event, Wikipedia has to decide on its standards for articles; by the current standards, the French apartheid article is perfectly encyclopedic and complies with all policies. If Wikipedia decides to become less political, and set a higher standard, then all the articles would have to go. I guess we'll have to wait and see which way this plays out; but an option that is not on the table is the double-standard currently espoused by those enamored of the Israeli apartheid article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you've misrepresented the "delete" position so willfully, so radically, and so stubbornly that it is difficult to know how to proceed. "1) I'm outraged you would accuse France of this." What outrage has been expressed here is largely a response to an attempt to hijack one part of Wikipedia in order to make a point about another. Your cracks about "la belle France" and the sensitivities of "French editors" are wholly inappropriate. France-focused editors have in the course of this discussion suggested topics like "French racism" and "Segregation in France," topics neither you nor any of the zealots you march in editorial lockstep with would ever let pass in an Israel-related article. They do not need a lecture from you about impartiality, or on how to keep their nationalist passions distinct from questions of editorial policy. "2) France doesn't really practice apartheid, it's only an metaphor/analogy/meme." This is a strawman. What has actually been pointed out, repeatedly, is that the sources you've provided do not give evidence of a prominent debate/discussion/meme/whatever about French "apartheid." Your sources are simply primary sources that use the word "apartheid," usually once only and in passing, for an astonishing variety of subjects: Algeria, immigrant self-segregation, discrimination, head-scarf controversies, gender relations. You've simply woven these together into a narrative of your own devising, about a pattern you've detected; it's pure original research. This is a policy objection, which you're trying now to misrepresent as an ideological one about what France is or isn't guilty of. Knock it off. Your hoax has been exposed; don't make it worse with further deceptions. As for "double standards": you have voted five times to delete "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," even as you actively support, promote, and defend these other "apartheid" articles with every tactic at your disposal, including "keep" votes in deletion debates.--G-Dett 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I don't suppose there's any point in asking you to focus on articles rather than other editors? I know I've made this same request of you about 100 times before and it's never made a bit of difference, but I always remain hopeful. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how, pray tell, does one address serial WP:POINT-violations, systematic creation of bogus articles for leveraging purposes, and chronic disruption of talk-page discussion (including radical misrepresentation of opponents' positions) without focusing on the editor(s) involved?--G-Dett 12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review begging the question. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it here.--G-Dett 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apartheid, per definition, is an official government policy, legally classifying people by race in order to segregate (not some debatable and potential side effects of non racial, non ethnic, policies, neither urbanism/ economics measures relegating poor people in urbans suburbs). This article doesn't talk (and hasn't any source to talk about) "Allegations of French apartheid", but metaphorically, or "quasi-apartheid" (sic), or "a sort of apartheid" (sic), or "partial similarities, in some aspects, to apartheid", "urban apartheid" (sic), or "informal apartheid system" etc. (as per article's sources). That's why, per NPOV, it'd better be renamed under an accurate title (say, "similarities with apartheid consequences in French contemporary society", or "social exclusion in France"). But what's remains questionable in this rename case is either Wikipedia should stay neutral and factual (ie. facts are not metaphors) or accepts sensationalists, strongly opinionated and inaccurate terms used as implicit comparisons (not to say POV) as main articles topics (rather than presented in the body of an accurate article, to properly balance it), just because some journalist somewhere made an approximative and shocking comparison -a known stylistic effect- to make her point. As Targeman showed, we could also write articles like "allegations of USA [metaphorical] fascism" with proper sources (and the same goes with any politician with international stature, eg. "Allegations of Tony Blair being the poodle of Bush", "Olmert's Qana's genocid", and so on, it's endless). How could non neutrals and inaccurate titles result in well balanced articles ? Let's not open such a Pandora's box. I ask for deletion (and content to go on 2005 civil unrest in France and other relevant articles). Same, if proposed for AfD, for all other "allegation of apartheid in xx", or article whose titles contains words like "genocide", "dictatorship", "nazi", "pogrom", "stalinism",... used as metaphors. Sadly this page wasn't purposed at discussing the whole lot, but please, let's avoid WP:ALLORNOTHING. Benjamin.pineau 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep There are enough reliable sources of notable people, organizations and countries accusing France of apartheid, but some sections deviate from the title and subject of the article (particularly under the 'Islamism' section), if it is about apartheid it shouldn't talk about 'self imposed segregation' I think that is not a very good comparison to the South African apartheid. However the article is still mostly good and encyclopedic. Bleh999 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your previous comment, you may not know that the entire list of these articles except one was recently created and remains under rather heated debate, while at least one of them has been deleted.[36] This is what has led to much of the debate here. Mackan79 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are posting a link to a different article, it has little relevance to this article, even if they share the 'allegations of apartheid' title, we should judge each individually on their own merits. Bleh999 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was only responding to your comment that deleting this one would create a glaring omission, which I took to be in reference to the set of articles. I may have misread you; if so, never mind. My general concern is that the material here would be better treated under a different name. Mackan79 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh999, there are not "enough reliable sources of notable people, organizations and countries accusing France of apartheid", and the proof of that is the "reference" section of the article: although its author is commited to demonstrate that such claims exist, he has failed to provide sources which back his point. His so-called "sources" merely happen to use the word "apartheid", but in no case are these articles claiming that such a thing exists in France, they merely mention the term as to make a provocative comparison. Just like people have compared New Orleans to Atlantis, and it would be ridiculous to say that some people claim that New Orleans is Atlantis. Rama 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to repeat myself, but your argument is equally applicable to all the articles in the "Allegations of apartheid..." article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, referenced and neutral. Lotlil 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to give some information about the subject of the article itself (allegation of French apartheid) but it seems that the only thing which is interesting people here is allegation of Israel apartheid or the ways some people try to get this article deleted by publishing notes built on the same frame. I really think that we should avoid to enter in their game and focus on "allegation of French apartheid". My opinion is that the article should be either deleted or renamed. Jeemde 09:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has no contributions outside of this AFD. Their comment should be treated like it was written by an IP address and ignored..--Urthogie 11:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speak about me? It is true that I have no contribution in other AFD. I discovered the way I could participate to Wikipedia only one day ago; before I was only using Wikipedia a source of information - and I thought it was a quite reliable one... because mistakes were corrected when they were detected.

Now I will be much more weary about the content of Wikipedia pages since some people seems to use the encyclopedia to settle political struggles.

Your reaction to my contribution is really pitiful. Because I never participated before to any fruitless controversy I should not have the right to speak...

I was only giving my perception of the questions raised in your article since I am in a good position to watch the actual situation in France (I live there). You could make acceptable objections, saying for example that my objectivity is not guaranteed, but your reaction is only demonstrating your closed mindedness.

If you want to discuss only with the same 10 guys who are haunting the AFD since enough time to get your approval, I will leave you there. But let me tell you that this attitude is VERY DETRIMENTAL to Wikipedia's credibility. Jeemde 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The proposal here was moved to talk, for greater readability. Thanks, Mackan79 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only hope that I don't belong to the same 10 guys who are haunting the AFD and to your the only thing which is interesting people here is allegation of Israel apartheid stereotype. I gave my reasons for weakkeeping this article based on British common law - the precedence - (end of the first section) - and these don't fit into your allegations. This is the English language Wikipedia, not some outfit for the Haaretz forum participants from Tel Aviv or for the Sorbonne islamism lovers from Paris to express their political views or ideas. In a matter of fact that VERY DETRIMENTAL Wikipedia of yours is trying hard to stick to the facts, and in this case to document the common opinion/s of others if they're notable, without giving any opinion itself. greg park avenue 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fear this discussion has gotten diverted by a red herring. It is NOT about whether the apartheid analogy is just, or valid, or plausible, or whatever. I've posted what I hope is a helpful statement on the issue here, on the "centralized discussion" page.--G-Dett 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Area code 801/385. —Kurykh 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area code 385[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Area code 385

The usual procedure for overlay area codes has been to have one article for both the original and the overlay area code. I've renamed the article for 801 to include 385, so the article on 385 should be deleted.WikiBrown 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Moreover, both the article and the KSL link the article references are inaccurate. Phone users in the 435 area code (St. George, for example) will be unaffected--they will not be included in the 385 area code, and they will continue with 7-digit dialing. Shepshep 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed link to point to the actual article. Can't believe we were having a theoretical discussion about a page that doesn't exist. DMacks 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect into Area code 801/385 (i.e., not outright delete). Seems like overlay-codes get a unified page, with redirects from each individual one (example: Area code 410 and Area code 443 both redirect to Area codes 410 and 443). DMacks 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Area code 801/385, in case anyone is looking specifically for area code 385. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - personally I don't see why we should have area code articles at all, except for those few that have some sort of specific and notable cultural impact. Having a list of area codes is sufficient enough. That said, since there appears to be consensus that such things ought to be kept, a merge per above is the best way to go. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Area code 801. Area codes are notable, but there's nothing here that shouldn't be combined with 801. Alansohn 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Area code 801 is actually just a redirect to Area code 801/385. DMacks 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Area code 801/385. Resolute 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custom chopper bicycle designers[edit]

If motorcycle Choppers are meant by "chopper bicycle" then this limited content should be merged. The article cites no sources. Absurdist 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge into Chopper_bicycle and expand.--Absurdist 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is no notability established anywhere and there is none that I can find. Corpx 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reason noted above. --UntilMoraleImproves 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete

Four Capital Accounting[edit]

This article has no sources to affirm it's notability, and may be advertising Absurdist 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO, or as spam/part of a walled garden with Gund Institute for Ecological Economics (could bundle it here, as that appears to fail WP:CORP). DMacks 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though frankly there is so little comprehensible context (but lots of "paradigm" babble) that I can't really tell if this is really an advert (delete per WP:SPAM), a pseudo company profile (WP:CORP), or a neologism (WP:NEO). Ugh. -- MarcoTolo 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term only netted 4 results on the search engine, none of which are reliable sources. Also, according to the results, the action described by the subject haven't been used at all. This shows that it's a non-notable neologism, or probably original research.--Kylohk 12:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.

G36c sniper[edit]

Not a correct variant of the H&K G36 DarkZealot89 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkZealot89 (talk • contribs) 2007/07/13 18:53:06

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable product, whether or not it is "correct". JulesH 12:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. -- MarcoTolo 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close and keep, not a reason for deletion. Page move made by me someone. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lane Coventry[edit]

Page sould be Green Lane, Coventry. It is implausable gramatically and it will only be a sourse of confusion Snowman 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Subject is a redirect, not an article. JulesH 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, per above.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. See WP:RFD for information about redirects and how to delete them, but there seems to be no point in deleting this one. Propaniac 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminous (user interface)[edit]

If I start a rumour that OSX 10.6 will be entirely red would a page be tolerated? No, therefore I think that this should go. Hello6565 23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A rumor is not worthy of an article. Shalom ^Hello 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blogs with rumors are not sources and this violates WP:CRYSTAL because its not released and there's no info now Corpx 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Funny, I closed that AfD. Sr 13 04:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1950s nostalgia films[edit]

Similar to List of 1930s nostalgia films (AFD), this page is a mere list of wikilinks without comments, in violation of WP:NOT#DIR, and it doesn't have a clear criteria of inclusion. Telling from the comments in the other AFD, this list provides even less context than the 1930s nostalgia films list. I am bringing this up for discussion and abstain. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no possible objective inclusion standard that can be applied to this list, making it irreparably fail WP:NPOV and WP:OR. "Set in the 1950s" does not equal "1950s nostalgia," and, Blue Velvet is a 1950s nostalgia film? In what universe? Otto4711 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such genres exist and classification is WP:OR Corpx 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS that the genre exists outside of WP. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR apparently, good examples of other deletes too. Bulldog123 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Mother[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is just a rumour that "Oh Mother" will become the fourth single, nothing has been confirmed Alvin 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. There's no references or anything (because it's a rumour). But if indeed it is released, this article can easily be rewritten. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 13:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure speculation, not a single source cited. Spellcast 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a cover made by a Wikipedia user. It must be real. (In case it weren't obvious, delete.) 17Drew 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Oh Mother (Christina Aguilera single) (a redirect to Oh Mother) should probably be deleted. 17Drew 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - There is now a reliable source linked which verifies the single's release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmicklethwaite (talk • contribs) 09:41, July 15, 2007 (UTC)
No, there's a link to a self-published source on Blogspot. 17Drew 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually I do not understand why people keep claiming to know the next singles... Alvin 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You already nominated the article for deletion; you don't need to !vote. 17Drew 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball gazing. --Malcolmxl5 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Redirect to the album this song originated from, until such a time as a specific release date can be sourced from reliable resources independant of Ms. Aguilera, the album's production company, or people directly linked to either of the two. -- saberwyn 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and crystal-ballism. Acalamari 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nom withdrawn, article looks a bit better now. Sr 13 04:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noritoshi Hirakawa[edit]

Essay, perhaps promotional and anyway written in BA-art-history-speak, on some photographer for whose work unreferenced claims are made. Not verifiable, and rather awful in its current state. Hoary 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Not all of the references that JulesH has dug up are impressive, but one or two are. The article was crap but now it isn't. (Nothing in what I read suggests to me that Hirakawa's works are of more than minimal interest or value, but maybe that's just my PoV and of course it is by the way.) Good job JulesH! -- Hoary 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improving, but that isn't cause to delete it. Artist is notable per WP:BIO ("The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries."): Sources include the one linked in the article, [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] JulesH 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~this bit of trash~~. There is no encyclopedic content in the article. There is no{scant} evidence of notability, no {or scant} evidence of a significant exhibition, publication, collection or body of work. ~~There are no sources.~~{Sources must be improved - if possible.} The writing is ~~awful, strongly~~ POV, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. And the article isn't even about the alleged photographer, ~~only an incoherent polemic~~. This article fails any serious evaluation of its worth. Pinkville 11:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How would you define a significant exhibition? This artist has been exhibited in major galleries worldwide. His work has been commented on favourably by independent publications. What else do you want? JulesH 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Well, after the rewrite it's certainly better than it was. But has Hirakawa had any solo exhibitions? What has he published? There's still no substance to this article - even as a stub it ought to have substance. Pinkville 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above 128.97.247.130 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have improved the article. JulesH 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the person is notable by anything included in the article or anything I found online. NobutoraTakeda 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [45][reply]
Keep, I think based on what is posted that he is notable.Callelinea 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BIO on the basis of the excellent WP:HEY by JulesH. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources prove notablilty. Pats Sox Princess 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above general discussion, esp. WP:HEY. Bearian 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep based on the commentary above plus the nomination has been withdrawn. Burntsauce 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 23:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and Marxism[edit]

This page should be deleted because every part of the article is of bias and distortions. Its entry is not encyclopedic, it reads more as an essay trying to bring a point across than a factual work. It fails its stated job of trying to bring the differences between Anarchy and Marxism. It only shows what the author describes what anarchy is and how Marxism is bad and as such redundant with a score of other articles and once again biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CmrdMariategui (talk • contribs).

Keep since there are many sources from which the similarities and differences can be identified, but needs a thorough rewrite and shortening. Itsmejudith 10:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit into shape. Important topic, lots of useful references. BobFromBrockley 11:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete A complete overhaul is needed. If no attempt at such an overhaul. I would push strongly for a deletion. --CmrdMariategui 11:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Obviously there has been interaction between the philosophical founders of both political theories, and interaction between active proponents of both since their founding. The 5 references at the bottom are evidence of that for purposes of article notability and verifiability. However a) this article needs point by point citation throughout or almost any reader will have to assume A + B = C Original Research and b) Much of it needs a rewrite to conform to an historical perspective instead of a conclusary one. The introduction would be the place to start, to clearly define the mandate not so much of the two groups as the wikipedia article on them. Readers need to know that this article is about philosophical and historical relationships, not an essay that someone made up in school one day. -Markeer 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per user Markeer Taprobanus 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Markeer is correct and this topic has had academic treatment. It was probably a great article in the context of Wikipedia ca. 2004, but now has serious sourcing and attribution problems just because our standards have risen. The proper approach should be to improve the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete. Pats Sox Princess 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-write. It has serious original research issues, but the debate was born almost at the same time as both ideologies where, so it is beyond notable. And of course:WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Cerejota 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 meeting music notability guidelines.-Wafulz 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Weed[edit]

Non-notable band, speedy deletion contested but no message on talk page with reason. Fails WP:MUSIC. User:Krator (t c) 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. "Notability" is defined as naming an event or album or single that the group produced, not merely saying that there was one. Shalom ^Hello 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern: Power of Ion[edit]

just another storyarc - no real world cultural significance or even significance within the genre (such as demonstrated by comics such as Watchmen, the dark knight returns, the authority) - just a bog story - it happened, I own it but it's not significant enought for it's own article. Fredrick day 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Published comicbook by DC Comics, thus it the fact that you own also suggests that it is notable and is sold woldwide. Englishrose 09:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an plot summary of say Sonic Distruptors (one of the first series to be cancelled before conclusion) or maybe vigilante 50 (the first on-screen suicide of a superhero) or civil war (multiple real world sources discussing it's impact) then you'd have a point. This is just another arc in an ongoing (now into it's 4th volume) comic series. There is nothing here that had any impact in the real world or was considered to push the genre. Even within the comics community, it is not seen as being a notable series. --Fredrick day 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes. It isn't automatically notable because Green Lantern is. If it can be demonstrated that this had a major, important role that warrants a more extensive discussion (which would have plenty of sources) then I'd vote for keep. As it stands there is nothing but plot (a copyright violation) and has no sources. (Emperor 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited, and existence does not mean notability. Fails WP:BK; I see no instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources among the 314 non-duplicate GHits for this comic's title; they're all blogs, forums, and retailers [46]. Also fails WP:FICT and WP:NOT in that it consists solely of plot summary and other in-universe content. cab 11:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for notability per WP:BK and there it is. Coverage in multiple non-trivial sources is the fundamental guideline for questions of notability, and the article neither cites nor implies even one secondary source. The book exists and has been sold, fine. So have hundreds of thousands of other books that reach a limited audience and receive no critical attention (much less critical praise). A brief synopsis of the plot (and here I mean 1-3 sentences) can be added to the article on Ion and/or Kyle Rayner. -Markeer 12:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, since this is not a request for deletion; discussion moved to Talk:English English, where it actually belongs. Non-admin closure. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English English[edit]

Probably a neologism- merge to British English or rename to English language in England. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to English dialects of English and link from the relevant section of British English. While the article does provide reliable sources for the use of the term, the article is about dialects, not the language itself. JulesH 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems like more than a neologism, or if anything a very, very well researched something. It makes some sense as British English might be called English English in Britain (much like how football is football, not soccer in the United States.) Guroadrunner 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football is football in England as well. 58.164.28.146 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Football is NFL, not soccer. Guroadrunner 09:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close (quickly, before someone starts making horrible Little Caesars jokes). I don't see anyone (including the nominator) calling for deletion here, and the article is reasonable well-sourced. Continue this discussion at Talk:English English or WP:RM if necessary. cab 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well referenced. Englishrose 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite reputable academic sources that talk about "English English"? If you can't and it turns out that it is a neologism it should definitely be renamed or merged. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK I now see the article claims that the phrase has been used in academic circles since the publication of Language in the British Isles in 1984 but I actually can't see any citation for that. However I still think the term is confusing and the alternative term "English in England" would seem more precise. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + maybe rename. I'm a linguist and I've never hears of such an umbrella term for English dialects. I'm certainly not up do date in English dialectology research, but "English English" sounds like a neologism to me. Experts such as Daniel Jones, David Crystal or Steven Pinker have never used it AFAIK. I'd like to see a reliable source indicating such usage. Anyway, the article itself is excellent. --Targeman 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to English language in England. The notability of the topic is in doubt, but the term appears to be insufficiently established, and it's also downright confusing. Mowsbury 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to [[English language in England (or other title) and speedy keep per "cab" above. There's no need to delete this article. It's well-developed with ample discussion and references. Shalom ^Hello 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename correctlyTaprobanus 14:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is no need whatsoever for this article to even be propsed for deletetion, as it is a perfectly valid article, with valid sources, and discusses in depth the various regional dialects. Re-naming it might be a option, but just to propose this article for deletion which is what the proposal is for no matter what is said above by the nominator - no. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per JulesH or perhaps Mowsbury; adjust text accordingly. Title conforms to "X English", like dialects Scottish English, Welsh English, Manx English, American English etc., but I agree the current title sounds silly, and is unsourced as a scholarly term. — mholland (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something (perhaps English language in England as nominated). The subject is noteworthy and many reliable sources exist for it, the title is unfortunate. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, just because it has a bad name does not make the topic a neologism. I slightly prefer English dialects of England but English language in England is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Do Not Rename. The term English English is currently preferred by most linguists, notably Peter Trudgill (see e.g. his book International English, where the term English English is used all the time.) ISBN 0-340-80834-9, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber

And I suggest that this article be nominated for deletion instead---completely unsourced; the term is never used by linguists (since it makes little sense), it just gets about 300 independent Google hits---it fails WP:N anyway. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename I've never heard of 'English English' but I can see how it might be a generic term for all regional dialects in England. Perhaps rename to English dialects. The article looks pretty good to me, no reason to delete. --Malcolmxl5 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, I see we have an redirect named English dialects]. --Malcolmxl5 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"English dialects" means "dialects of the English language" (not only England, but also Scotland, North America, Australia, etc.) "English English" is the term currently used by Trudgill and other linguists; see Trudgill and Hannah, International English, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done some research. It would seem that English English is not a neologism after all, Trudgill introduced the term in a book of his way back in 1984. The problem is, Trudgill seems to crop up almost every time the term is mentioned. So I still have my doubts about the widespread use of this term by scientists other than Trudgill. I myself have studied under a renowned linguist and I've worked as a teacher and translator but every time I've heard "English English", it was delivered with air quotes. Conclusion: I wouldn't insist on renaming the article that much now. But if the name stays, we'd need plenty of redirect options because most people are unaware of this term.--Targeman 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What little ceasar speaks? ~ Infrangible 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - but - this appears to overlap with the articles referenced by List of dialects of the English language. It will be a major undertaking to reconcile these parallel streams of documentation. Acroterion _(talk) 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Even the nominator suggests merging this rather than deleting it, so if not keep-keep, then merge merge. ~ Mandsford Mandsford 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - not a deletion request. 70.55.88.166 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen. Since it's pretty clear that we ain't got *nothing* to delete, I suggest that this nomination be closed and the discussion moved to Talk:English English, where it actually belongs. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear!--Targeman 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 context). utcursch | talk 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Football Transfers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/World Football Transfers

Irrelevant and insufficent information BenArsenal 08:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what the nominator have said. The article is also very poorly written. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1, no context. Also WP:NOT#DIR. Shalom ^Hello 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Shalom. --Malcolmxl5 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A1, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CitisBest[edit]

Looks like spam, not doesn't seem to pass notability, but I'm not positive enough for Speedy. superβεεcat 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom. This is a poorly spelt, vanity piece, which advertises some kind of commercial web community with minimal noteability. Possibly written as a form of advertising. I dont think it qualifies for a speedy delete but it certainly seems to qualify for deletion imo. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 10:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above. Bearian 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to private label. Sr 13 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private label service[edit]

Not a dictionary, no sources or cites, single sentence article. superβεεcat 07:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a dictionary Corpx 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to private label. Wl219 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was heartbroken. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts[edit]

Article based entirely on Original Research. Also a fictional topic that has not received "significant coverage" from real sources Corpx 07:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphan article that seems to be Original Research. Guroadrunner 07:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many games and anime have characters who are always put together by the fans as a couple, sometimes the pairings result in homosexual (yaoi/yuri) stuff. However, Wikipedia should not cover entries like this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. article seems to be mainly OR. Onopearls 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, just like the others said. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because items like "holding hands" meets the vague criteria for "homosexuality". The page doesn't seem to have any thing worth merging to other pages. NobutoraTakeda 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, total original research. Not at all significant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... not that my opinion is needed here ;) OR through and through. EyeSerene^TALK 18:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this wondering what the heck I missed by not finishing Kingdom Hearts II... oh, it's just fanon and OR. Never mind! Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real references, original research, and would confuse somebody not familiar with the video game series. (Guyinblack25 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete while agreeing with all above. The article itself is fuzzy and lacks any real level of context. --Stormbay 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly written/unwikified, OR, and mostly unsourced (except a fan site which is often a doubtful type of source)--JForget 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a big joke to me. I may be wrong, but whoever wrote it must've done it just to get a laugh. Delete that sucker. Magicallydajesus 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Maria Dorothea von Württemberg[edit]

prod was removed with no changes to article. This woman is notable by association. Other than being a wife and mother, she has done nothing notable in her own right. Postcard Cathy 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the times she lived, it's highly possible (even probable) she's done something notable, and we just can't locate that info on the internet -- I'd be more inclined to suggest additional sourcing instead of deletion. Spazure 07:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and merge the first sentence if desired, as all except the first couple of lines is already in Archduke_Joseph,_Palatine_of_Hungary.Merkinsmum 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She may be a fairly minor historical figure in the grand scheme of things, but as the article says, she was wife of the Palatine of Hungary and mother to the Queen Consort of Belgium, which is notable as far as Hungarian and Belgian history is concerned. Of course it needs fleshing out, but it's only been around for a day. I might also point out that, as evidenced by the article's talk page, it's doubtful whether the nominator even read the article, the first time it was prod-ed, or the second. Miremare 12:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I doubt you read my response. When I prod'd the article, all the article said were the dates of her birth and death, who her spouse was, and the names of her children. IMHO, if that is all that is written, I would prod Pres. Bush, Queen Elizabeth and Prince William. No one mentioned being the wife of the Palatine and it was unclear or unsaid that her daughter became the Queen Consort of Belgium. If it isn't in the article, don't go expecting me to do your research. You mentioned all that info on the talk page. If it had been in the article before I found it, I would not have prod'd it!

I did read your response, but I wonder whether you read mine. I replied on the article's talk page providing this link: [47] which clearly shows that the article said these things at the time of the original prod. In fact, if you look in the article's history you will see that it has said these from the moment it was created. In all seriousness, if you can't be a little more observant with what articles and other users say, you should maybe consider leaving the prod-ing to someone else. Miremare 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was a member of two royal families at a time when they still had immense power. During her marriage she would have been the most prominent woman in Hungary. Mowsbury 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The duties she would have had as the wife of the Palatine of Hungary, duties associated with being a princess her whole life, and duties associated with being the Queen Consort of Belgium's mother, while perhaps not being enough for a historian to mention, would certainly be "notable" by any standard. She was the wife of a powerful man and mother of a powerful woman. There is no end to the contributions, big and small, that she most likely made to the history of Hungary. If nothing else, she certainly made a very "notable" contribution to the history of Belgium, and all by just going through childbirth. Obviously that last had a big impact on Belgian history. And that one can't be claimed as just an association, as it was her accomplishment. (Danica 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Keep Royals are inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; royalty are obviously notable even if they have no other qualifications. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep, as per Richard Arthur Norton and Ihcoyc. Callelinea 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete/Merge Royals are only notable as being royalty, so that means if they are important they can be put on a page with out royals and not given their own page unless there is notable information needed to elaborate on them that takes up so much room they need their own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [48][reply]
Keep The First Lady of Hungary at some time is no more non-notable than the First Lady of the United States. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but there's an undercurrent of "she's a woman so she's automatically not notable". --Charlene 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability was through giving birth. Why isn't she just added to her husbands page? They did the same thing. NobutoraTakeda 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware, you might get flamed very bad for sexism with such statements. The husband didn't do much very notable besides being a participant in the breeding of royal genes, so why not just add him to his wife's page?--Victor falk 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL You have a strong point. Why not add them to a page about the family as a whole? NobutoraTakeda 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For better or worse royals are notable pretty much by default, the amount which has been written about them over the centuries more or less guarantees that there will be multiple, reliable sources etc., just not necessarily available on the interweb. She certainly existed, further details can always be added later if need be. Possibly tag for expert attention if not adequately cited in a few days. Iain99 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dukes and dutchesses seem to be kept due to inherent notability by precedent (as opposed to baronets which need some real achievements). Some sources would be nice to support her achievements in producing lots of other royals to marry all over the place. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a consort of a Palatine she is certainly notable, never mind the rest. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Royals are notable, but needs referencing Taprobanus 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most royal members are notable, although needs as cited above some more sources to satisfy WP:V--JForget 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, Taprobanus, JForget, Iain99, Charlene, Callelinea et al. Needs more cites. Bearian 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the subject is obviously notable to anyone with a clue. Burntsauce 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:Lectonar (G12). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mulai menulis[edit]

notability, linkspam Wkta 07:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is not in English, may be linkspam, and worthy of {{db-spam}}. In fact, I'm gonna stick that tag on that article right now. Guroadrunner 07:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what language is this anyway? If it's not spam, then possible transwiki to that language's Wikipedia? Guroadrunner 07:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/withdrawn. —Kurykh 23:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University Chapter of SDS[edit]

Nomination withdrawn - recommend closing AFD. Extensive work was done to article. Guroadrunner 07:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (original nominator)[reply]

Largely an essay on a questionable-notable topic. However, personally I recommend transwiki-ing to WikiSource or an equivalent information service. Just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Guroadrunner 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) additional information:[reply]

Recommendation - Per cerejota, I recommend:

*1) Moving article as it stands to WikiSource. - can't be sent there, see comments below

2) Making new stub article that is wikified correctly.

~~:Yes? No? Guroadrunner 07:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)~~ additional information: If not sent to WikiSource, I will clean slate the article and make a new stub to start from to build a proper, Wikified article. Guroadrunner 11:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP IF CLEANED UP I was too little when this happened in the 60s but in the early to mid 70s, I heard about it all the time. It was extremely important then and indirectly, now. But I think if it is going to stay, it needs a major rewrite. Postcard Cathy 07:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and re-write. Subject is certainly notable - can't read a history of the period without mention of this -, but certainly needs a total re-write. I know experts in the field and will contact them to see if they can help with sourcing and re-write. There is actually so much wealth of material on this that I have no doubt once re-written, it will become FA fodder.--Cerejota 07:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's why I suggested transwiki to WikiSource. It seems like a good read, but is in too poor of a shape to stay and may be NN - ~~this article on a chapter of an org isn't even linked in the article of the main organization it was affiliated with.~~ Guroadrunner 07:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply we might take the article as it stand into wikisource, but we need to get out of our lazy asses and make this a wiki article, and hence we must keep at least a stub. Sources abound. I mean, even Lyndon LaRouche, a notorious political cult figure was involved in this SDS chapter (his National Caucus of Labor Committees was actually a split from the Columbia SDS' Labor Committee). --Cerejota 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation - Per cerejota, I recommend:

1) Moving article as it stands to WikiSource.

2) Making new stub article that is wikified correctly.

Yes? No? Guroadrunner 07:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if we do not do this, then I am for Keep. I'll rather have sucky content that we can flesh out than no content.--Cerejota 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A particularly influential chapter of the SDS. As for moving it to Wikisource, my understanding of their mission is that it is for primary sources. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It reads like an essay, why can't it go to WikiSource ? Guroadrunner 08:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened up the moving to WikiSource question to the people at WikiSource. See this link for the discussion.

If it cannot be moved, then my next recommendation is clean slate the article and start as stub. It needs wikification and cannot exist how it is right now. If it is FA material, all the better (I believe you); it just needs to be done right. Somehow I believe many will not appreciate my editing method of slash-and-cut for improperly done articles like this. Guroadrunner 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a clear exception to the general practice of articles about individual chapters of an organization. They were the motivating factor in events of permanent historical importance--along with Berkeley and Kent State, the defining events of the movement. DGG (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'::I was referring to the subject--the article itself needs to be rewritten. DGG (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikisource does not host original essays, but rathe previously published material. Please read "What Wikisource includes"--BirgitteSB 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no sources are provided to substantiate notability. Nick Graves 15:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge if this chapter was really important to SDS it should be included on the SDS page and not its own. Other than that, there is no third party evidence of notability or any reason I can see for it to have its own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [49][reply]
Weak Delete Due to lack of sources that establish notability Corpx 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify for BLP purposes and Keep As it it is completely unreferenced original research which violates WP:BLP by naming a great many persons as faculty or student radicals or communists. This cannot persist. With no referencs required, anyone could name anyone, and this would be considered libel by some. The original article and the present version are both unreferenced narrative. They do not belong in Wikisource, ulless they cite a reliable source to say "So and so planned the library sit-in" etc. From other sources over the years I have read accounts of the SDS and its growth nationwide in the late 1960's which bear out the broad strokes of this, and sources exist to verify the notability of the SDS at Columbia, right up there with the Berkely Free Speech movement. So stub this rambling original research reminiscence essay down, then use references to create an encyclopedic article which satisfies WP:A and WP:BLP. But stating that so and so was a leading student radical is right up there with the Siegenthaler libel. The New York Times had articles on the events described, without the details about whose apartment some action was planned in, and could be a source. Various national magazines and scholarly books have also reviewed student radicalism in the 1960's and could be used as sources. Did the creator of the article state that it was all from his personal observation? Well, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to publish it. Edison 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant player in the Columbia Univ. riots. Wl219 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedia document[edit]

Not sure if the thing exists, but it certainly has a useless article title. superβεεcat 06:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pandanus tectorius/Stuff to merge or something, then merge to Pandanus tectorius. Then speedy delete the resulting redirect from Pedia document (WP:CSD#R3 or WP:CSD#G6). Seems to survive a quick google test for copyvio [50]. GFDL requires that we keep the history of articles merged elsewhere, but I don't believe it requires we keep them at the original title, especially in a case where the original title is useless (as in this case). cab 06:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have an article, and this reads so very much like a cut-and-paste from a textbook or something similar. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article also is an orphan. Guroadrunner 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems to be the author's first contribution... I think s/he wants to improve pandanus tectorius and his using this as some kind of sandbox.

I think this might be the explanation. I've put a note on the editor's talk page. Espresso Addict 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pandanus tectorius for obvious reasons. Dan Gluck 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - looks like a test page, looking at the history. I'm not 100% sure so I won't delete it but that's my vote. ugen64 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Doom (film)[edit]

It was prodded as fancruft but needs discussion. It was created at 04:59 on 26 July 2006 and much work has been done on it. Anthony Appleyard 06:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request sourcing. If not, delete. - This not only looks like fancruft, it looks like original research. Guroadrunner 07:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the Doom movie page but as a kid I played the game. If this info isn't there then I think it should be moved/merged but hey im new here so what do I know? Consaka 07:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete I looks like one of my old C&C pages, and that means it ain't supposed to be here. In the spirit of watching demolitions in slow motion though, I will agree to Consaka's request for sourcing as a justifiable reason to keep this here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A list of weapons in a movie? It's not even a particularly riveting list. If we keep this, does that mean we should allow "Weapons in Apocalypse Now" or "Weapons in The Matrix"? Sorry, I just don't think this appropriate for Wikipedia. There is however a Doom wiki that may also cover the movie (you'd need to check with them). Cedars 09:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel strongly that fictional lists like this are prime candidates for deletion. They are virtually impossible to verifiy and of little encylopedic use to anyone. Fails noteability of fictional related articles. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 10:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the information was important it would be put on the page devoteed to the film. NobutoraTakeda 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [51][reply]
Delete or transwiki it. I dont think an encyclopedia should be listing ________ in a film Corpx 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless, unencyclopedic, original research. EyeSerene^TALK 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Doom (film) article or Transwiki it to the Doom Wiki if it doesn't exist already.JForget 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia. Anything important here should be covered on Doom (film), not given its own page. --Haemo 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have transwikied it to the Doom Wiki. Anthony Appleyard 08:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and do not merge. Burntsauce 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:Delirium (A7). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literature Alive![edit]

A non notable literature program. A search through the internet shows no non-trivial sources mentioning it. Also, there seems to be a conflict of interest regarding the author. Kylohk 06:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a literature program for Second Life, as near as I can tell, so given circumstances, I'm inclined to tag it with an A7 - but will leave this to someone else. Speedy Delete accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, so tagged. Not remarkable in the least. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenhawk (sexuality)[edit]

This article doesnt really have sources, and doesnt seem like it could get bigger than it is now, doesnt seem like a real subject for wikipedia. Bubulina8888 06:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~delete~~ Keep (see "Reason for changed vote" below for reasons) show me sources that give substantial treatment (as per WP:N)to the subject(s) of the article and I'll change my vote. I'd heard the term before and thought I'd find something online, but I don't see anything but a couple of definitions, so now I doubt the term or subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps it's better treated as part of another article. Noroton 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for changed vote There seems to be substantial treatment of the topic in at least one book and one academic article (Reeling in the Years: Gay Men's Perspectives on Age and Ageism by Tim Bergling, and Adam, Barry D. "Age Preferences among Gay and Bisexual Men" GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, now in the article's footnotes. It now seems reasonable to assume that Wikipedia-acceptable sources are available. If the article actually had the sources in it, and if they provided substantial information, that would be better and I wouldn't call my vote "weak." Wikipedia policy talks about "verifiable" not "verified". Noroton 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this (slightly obsolete) aspect of gay culture. Scores of Google Books results (using chickenhawk+gay, other terms may garner further sources). Google Scholar has dozens more. This has been widely studied and written about, but the newer political term (as well as decreasing usage) makes it harder to find the sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may wish to note the WP:POINT-y Bubulina8888 (talk · contribs) contribution history. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at those results at Google Scholar and Google Books and found maybe one book on older gay men that on its face would likely give substantial treatment of the subject (Reeling in the Years: Gay Men's Perspectives on Age and Ageism by Tim Bergling). I haven't seen evidence that there's more out there, and there needs to be. Noroton 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're saying there's one major primary source in addition to all the supporting sources. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "maybe" and invited further efforts that could change my mind. You bring up a point I mentioned in a deletion discussion about a school in a case where there was an online source anybody could read to see that the subject was covered in depth, along with many minor sources that I thought added up to notability. We don't have that here. We don't even know if the minor sources just use the term. I welcome good-faith efforts to reach a consensus here. Noroton 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no strong reason to delete it. If it's unsourced, it needs sources, if it doesn't seem it can get bigger -- that could very well be because you aren't interested in the topic. Furthermore, I also noticed that you previously tried to delete Gay_(disambiguation) and Lesbian_(disambiguation), leading me to wonder if the reason you didn't cite a policy reason for deletion is because the real reason of this nomination is to raise a soapbox issue. Spazure 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've no views on this one, but as Dhartung says, Bubulina has been told off about this trying to delete gay stuff before.Merkinsmum 10:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition as it stands. While I find the nominator's actions regarding gay-related articles questionable, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn and in this instance the article as it stands is not Wikipedia material. If it's substantially improved before the close of the AFD with sourcing and context then I can be persuaded to change my opinion. Otto4711 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a link to imdb. I put it there. Tony 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source. Otto4711 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who says so? That's ridiculous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples says so, in regards to much of the material posted to IMDB. Much of its content is user-submitted and its editorial oversight is not strong. Regardless, since this is an article about the term and not the film I'm at a loss as to how IMDB is supposed to serve as a source for the article. Otto4711 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least read what you are pointing me toward and telling me to read. It says: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. One exception being that film credits on IMDb, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." My emphasis added. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did read it, even the big boldy-type letters. I stand by my paraphrase of it. And it still is not a reasonable source, reliable or otherwise, for this article. Yes, the movie exists. The article isn't about the movie. Otto4711 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge contents appropriately Taprobanus 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge to what? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a stub. We let stubs grow. SchmuckyTheCat
Delete The page doesn't seem appropriate to an encyclopedia even if expanded. If someone wants to know a definition of a slang term they can buy a slang dictionary. NobutoraTakeda 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [52][reply]
Keep. "Chickenhawk" is very old (Victorian at least - it's used frequently in the Victorian novel/book My Secret Life) slang, but I'm concerned that this AfD is being brought as some kind of WP:POINT, one way or the other. --Charlene 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Strong Keep This is about as far from being a neologism as you can get, and is a properly sourced article with much room for encyclopedic expansion. Old and strongly entrenched sexual terminology isn't a "real subject for Wikipedia"? Sounds like either I don't like it or "it's foreign to me". VanTucky ^(talk) 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the term was as important as you make it out to be, then it would be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page. NobutoraTakeda 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's an article, not a "page". Second, your argument makes no sense. It would not have it's own article if it was a notable term? Generally something is considered more notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment when it has a separate article from its parent topic. In this case, neither homosexuality nor pedophilia are appropriate merge options, as the the term is very expansive and can mean a variety of individuals and behaviors. I have to say that many of those in favor of deletion seem to be completely ignorant of the term's notability and frequency of usage in the gay community. Just because a term isn't frequently used in your culture, doesn't mean it's an obscure slang term. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, my argument makes no sense? You just said that its notable because it has an article. I don't see any real proof that the term is legitimate or used by any real source of information. If it can't fit into another page then it should just be outright deleted. NobutoraTakeda 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say having an article makes it notable. I said that your idea that it should "be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page" is wrong. It's notable because of the citations to independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chicken hawk is slang. If it cannot be mentioned on the pages dealing with what it is slang for, then it deserves no mention at all. NobutoraTakeda 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an interesting opinion, but do you have a policy or guideline that says this? --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its common sense and it deals with notability. A slang word is inherently only notable as the word it is slang for, unless its a racial slur or equally notable words. Chickenhawk does not fit said definition. NobutoraTakeda 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO - "a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". The mentions in the 2 articles are trivial and I'm removing the urbandictionary.com citation. Corpx 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nontrivial sexual terminology. Article cites sources. Chubbles 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added one academic paper referring to it, and an academic discussion. DGG (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched the academic discussion and found nothing in it but a sentence or two that simply defined "chicken" and "chicken hawk" in this context. The academic article (behind a subscription wall) looks promising. Thanks for the tiny step forward. You changed my vote to "weak keep". Noroton 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to see where this article heads. It's only a stub and I have no objections to its current form. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and expand. This is a bad faith nomination. If it doesn't expand to a good article in a proper amount of time, we should renominate it. CaveatLector^Talk 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is slang for an area of gay sexuality that is socially uncomfortable for people to talk about within gay culture which is also stigmatized let alone researched. Most of the gay slang articles are routinely vandalized and I see this as either an extension of homophobia by trying to defeat this culture from being represented on WP or the lack of empathy for gay culture or both. Benjiboi 05:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a lovely bit of OR that you just produced. Any verifiable information to back up your claims? NobutoraTakeda 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I would need to back up my vote with references. Can we agree that sex in general is a subject that is considered somewhat taboo and gay sex is probably more so and that intergenerational gay sex just a bit more taboo than both? Benjiboi 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's a stub which looks just fine to me, other than the end seeming a bit defensive. When it's currently being considered for AfD, however, I would be too were I the article's authors. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —— Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to pass our sourcing policies, it is an encyclopedic subject, and stubbiness is not a ground for deletion. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its current for the article seems well-sourced, and the term itself is well-known and notable (much more so than a lot of others I've seen). TAnthony 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, well-known, worthy of encyclopedic coverage, etc. Burntsauce 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Wafulz 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Indonesian Navy ships[edit]

Origional research list of ships, most of whom are not notable. This doesn't seem like an encyclopediac list. Sefringle^Talk 05:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daft nomination. This 'Origional research' is sourced from Jane's Fighting Ships, which is the military equipment 'bible', and now links to the existing article on the Indonesian Navy. Would a list of Royal Navy or U.S. Navy ships not be notable? Of course this is "encyclopediac ". If there are any inaccuracies they can be amended but a list of current ships in a Navy seems entirely legitimate to me. Nick mallory 05:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory. Probably needs a better name like List of ships of the Indonesian Navy , as article titles and text should avoid dependent time references like "current". Also I don't see any reason that individual ships of the Indonesian navy are non-notable; these can be considered on a case-by-case basis as the redlinks get filled in. cab 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. cab 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of ships of the Indonesian Navy. (ISTR some kerfuffle over whether it should be List of ships of the X Navy or List of X Navy ships, but both forms appear to remain in use.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wary Keep if it is indeed accurate and reliably referenced. But how on earth are we to keep this list up to date? What happens if no one edits it for 12 months - I will bet it will then be out of date and hence inaccurate. Merbabu 05:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - actually, just because there is a number of Indonesian navy ships and we are accepting the sources for the list as reliable, does that actually mean we should create such a list? Is it really encyclopedic, significant, and useful to readers? Or just a list made because this site gives us the technical ability? Ie, simply because we can create the list, does that mean we should? Just asking at the moment. Merbabu 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're arguing Jane's Fighting Ships isn't reliable? That any article relating to something whose state of knowledge might change in the future - e.g. every article on Wikipedia - should be deleted because things might change in the future? How would this list not be useful to readers who, I don't know, wanted to know about the numbers and types of ships in the Indonesian Navy? Seriously, do you actually grasp the point of Wikipedia, the constantly updated encyclopedia which anyone can edit, at all Merbabu? Nick mallory 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you really have to be uncivil, I suggest that next time you at least make sure you haven't completely misunderstood my two posts. --Merbabu 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - How have I misunderstood your two posts exactly? There are navy lists of ships for lots of other navies and everyone else agrees with me that this list is, by definition, notable The idea that because an article of this type will inevitably become outdated at some point in the future if it's not updated seems to miss wikipedia's one great asset of being able to be updated very quickly. Just because you think that it's unlikely that someone will update it in the future doesn't make that the case. I'm a loss to understand the misunderstanding or your accusation of incivility. Nick mallory 10:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Daft nomination" and "do you actually grasp the point of Wikipedia ... at all" could probably be phrased better or remain unsaid. cab 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. Based on the nom's other AFDs today I am suspicious of WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are voting based on the nominator rather than the value of the article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone else above. We have lists like this for, say, the Canadian Coast Guard, among others, so I don't see how this differs. However, I would say some of the ship articles, like KRI Ajak, are NN or should be merged over. It's notable enough. Guroadrunner 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Navy Ships are notable and it is sourced. Englishrose 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change per Dhartung and cab - the Indonesian project - one of two projects this list could belong to - has lists with the title 'lists' and articles that are lists should be named as such - otherwise delete - the Indonesian project has enough problem with fraud articles - we do not need articles that claim to be articles that are in fact lists SatuSuro 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-sourced lists are hardly "fraud articles"; they are an essential part of an encyclopedia and a resource for further development. See WP:LIST for some guidelines. cab 11:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note - I am talking about the Indonesian project in general not necessarily just this list - please do not take me out of context - however the article does constitute one while it has the current title - one janes ref is hardly what I would call well sourced considering the complex politics and intricacies of Indonesian military equipment acquirements over the last twenty years. Cannot some helpful person close this rather lame afd soon? SatuSuro 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think Satu was taken out of context (not intentionally and in good faith). Further, i actually don't think there is one person actually supporting deletion, apart from the original nomination which was made in good faith and is not unreasonable in principle. --Merbabu 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article originally to prevent the loss of the data when it was removed from the Military of Indonesia page. For the page name, I ruthlessly copied the format and style from the Current Royal Australian Navy ships page. Noting SatuSuro's comments, I have also now changed it's class to List. Finding authoritative sources online has been difficult (and my Bahasa isnt quite up to wading through the TNI-AL website) - hence my referencing the hard-copy Jane's. Once I have completed updating the list (as per the 2007 JFS), I will attempt to source some more references (most likely hard-copy).PalawanOz 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they were important they could be listed on the Indonesian Navy page instead of having their own. I don't see how "current" deserves a mention. I don't think a title or a name gives notability, especially without any information listed. NobutoraTakeda 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [53][reply]
Keep lack of citations worry me, but I dont think that should be the sole reason to delete. This list would also be maintable due to the size of the navy Corpx 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment - consider renaming Current Indonesian Navy ships to List of Current Indonesian Navy ships ? Guroadrunner 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have issue with any article with "current" in the title, as it would have to continuously be updated. Current is unencyclopediac for the simple reason that an encyclopedia should be true now, and true in the future. Something titled crurent will be outdated shortly.--Sefringle^Talk 03:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of current Indonesian Navy ships per above. The use of "current" is important to contrast with a (potential) list of former ships, ones that are notable but no longer in commission. Look at, for example, List of former ships of the Finnish Navy and List of current ships of the Finnish Navy. This list should only be titled without "current" if it is meant to include all former ships as well. Looking at those, perhaps we should include the disclaimer they use:

A list of current Finnish Navy vessels. The list might not be fully up-to-date or complete.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and sourced additions are welcome. (i.e. {{Dynamic list}})

That would allay concerns about quick outdating, as long as it is kept up to date periodically (which I expect it would, as much as any other Wikipedia page). If a list of former ships is short, it could be added to make a single List of Indonesian Navy ships, with some sign to indicate which are no longer in commission. Does anyone know how long that would run? Along these lines, I also support renaming Current Royal New Zealand Navy ships, Current Royal Australian Navy ships, and Ships of the Royal Netherlands Navy (which includes current and former ships) to lists. Rigadoun (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah[edit]

Origional research Sefringle^Talk 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - When you say WP:OR you refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. It is not the case. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and many other references in Arabic and few other languages. I'd ask the creator to use other references. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, you just copied the same message onto all my afd nominations, making me wonder if you are making an opinion based on the editor rather than the actual value of the article. With the sources, source 1 isn't related to the topic, source 2 seems to be on a different topic as well. Source 3 is about a person in modern times. The article Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah said it is from the time of the Battle of Uhud, which is a completely different time period. Source 4 isn't reliable, and source 5 is doesn't even mention this person.--Sefringle^Talk 08:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is possible to cite sources for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than please do.--Sefringle^Talk 08:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close. Based on the nom's other AFDs today I am suspicious of WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are voting based on the nominator rather than the value of the article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FayssalF. And also, since you use this rationale in several places: WP:OR refers to original interpretations and theories (typically in science or history), not unsourced material about real people, places, or objects. Debates about biographies are generally based on WP:BIO and WP:V. cab 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WP:V#Burden of evidence states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As the article itself lacks reliable third party sources, Wikipedia shouldn't have it.--Sefringle^Talk 08:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting that sentence. By article topic we mean the subject of the article, not the article itself. JulesH 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per refs provided by FayssalF which I've added to the article. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, she is notable and all of people of that early war is notable. --- A. L. M. 10:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All known associates of Muhammad are notable, just like all known associates of Jesus. Mowsbury 12:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall Jackson Hotel[edit]

No assertion of notability; unsourced Gilliam 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ Keep and expand. Notability established by Dhartung's recent edit and AfD comments. ~~per nom. No assertion of notability.~~ Danelo 04:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, historic 1924 hotel notably rebuilt in 2000s. Member of National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Hotels of America.[54] Founding loc. of Gold Star Mothers of North America.[55] Hotel had historic notability (of the 1200+ Google News Archive results, many are from its heyday) and notability is permanent. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and original reasearch. Oyster guitarist 06:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I agree with Dhartung. I don't know where oyster got the idea it is original research but at least now there are sources! Postcard Cathy 07:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the earlier version of the article was pretty sketchy. But the term original research means something specific and in this case it was being misapplied where {{unreferenced}} was meant.--Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, source - I can see that prior to Dhartung's edits, it looked like Original Research (from a strict WP:OR point of view). I think it is worthy of keeping if expanded, or more likely, merging to the article of its home city. Guroadrunner 07:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Dhartung's edits. T Rex | talk 07:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If it's a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation then it has got to be notable. Englishrose 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, as a stub and expand using the available sources. As National Trust site, it is notable. Edison 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For accuracy's sake, anyone can join the National Trust, but the National Trust "Historic Hotels of America", which is a marketing affiliation program, requires National Register listing or eligibility, or significant local notability, for hotels to join. The site is not operated or owned by the National Trust. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Aguéli[edit]

origional research. Also no evidence of any notability Sefringle^Talk 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - As per my vote at Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah's AfD. When you say WP:OR you refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. It is not the case. 1, 2, 3, and many other references in Arabic and few other languages. The guy got a museum w/ his name and you say Original Reaserch and NN? Have you checked the facts before trying to waste everyone's time w/ this AfD saying it is NN? I'd ask the creator to use other references. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By origional research, I mean "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". This article clearly meets this criteria as there isn't a source within the article. I don't know what you are talking about with "other" references, as there are none in the article. Lets see: Source 1 isn't in english, and I don't understand it, so I won't comment on it. Source 2 I don't know if it is a reliable source, but I don't think it is from a notable website and source 3 looks like a primary source. As for the museum arguement, not every museum is notable.--Sefringle^Talk 08:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close. Based on the nom's other AFDs today I am suspicious of WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are voting based on the nominator rather than the value of the article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, and I am actually not in agreement with these views. However, your claim of "original research" for an AfD is highly unusual: usually we put a {{sources}}, and cleanup the article, and look for sources, not delete obviously notable articles. The article is already tagged as requiring sources, please be patient. All of this page is obviously not original research. I usually only support deletions based on notability or pov forking, and only support deletion of notable articles when it is fancruft and related cruftiness. Please have more trust in the ability of your fellow editors: we take our sweet time, but we get there.--Cerejota 08:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dont understand why this was even brought to AfD. I enjoyed the article and learned something new which is what an Encyclopedia is for. He was definitly notable for a number of reasons including have stamps issued with his pictures on them and a number of things including a museum named after him. I am not sure what original research means but if that's it then it must be a good thing. ;) Consaka 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)— Consaka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep and close original research? Article could use some more sourcing, but the simple notability of the subject - 21,400 unique hits in google. I actually didn't know this guy existed until I read this, but man, this is the most misguided AfD I have ever seen. --Cerejota 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we go by google hits to determine notability?--Sefringle^Talk 08:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't when it comes to actual contents, but it is used a lot in AfD to specify general notability. However, John Gustaf Agelii, aka Ivan Aguéli, is so notable, a museum is named after him. [56]. As I said, your concern on sources is legitimate, however this doesn't warrant a destructive AfD, but a constructive search for sources.--Cerejota 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is used a lot, and most of the times, it is rejected as invalid evidence.-Not every museum is notable.-Sefringle^Talk 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of this is OR, and a one person writeup with no sources whatsoever, so its unencyclopedic. I would have done a Keep if it was only a stub with multiple reliable sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennisthe2, Consaka and Cerejota; as it's still a stub and needs referencing, but he is clearly notable if he has a museum and so many Ghits. Bearian 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the article is not a stub. It iteslf provides no evidence of any notability nor is it verifiable according to WP:V--Sefringle^Talk 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [57] Plenty of sources Giggy _U^CP 02:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~Delete, until he plays in a professional league, per WP policies~~ --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At DRV, the original closer reversed himself and changed the result to no consensus. Xoloz 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Mérida[edit]

The most recent revision of this article was speedy-deleted as a CSD G4, based on this AfD. However, DRV overturned, finding the content substantially different. Still, weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable--Sefringle^Talk 05:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general criterion for notability is: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think this criterion is met. Sky Sports says he is one of "Europe's most promising teenage talents". In fact, he is well-known enough to have had 5 articles written about his transfer and career at Arsenal, which is more than some other "notable" players. He was a member of the Spain U-17 team that won the 2007 UEFA U-17 Championship (an official FIFA-sponsored international competition). The arguments to delete players like this are based on one of the criteria in WP:BIO - "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are considered notable. However, the full guideline says that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." These standards include...
- "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (several, including Sky Sports and BBC... not to mention Marca)
- "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" (winning an official FIFA-sponsored international competition?)
- "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition" - okay, we all know that Google searches are not infallible, but compare Merida's 30k + hits (more than 50k if you take out the "Arsenal" search term) with a few players that I think are undoubtedly notable. First - Neil Cox, the captain of a League One side, who gets less than 1000 hits. Second - Steve Guppy, an England international with over 100 matches played in the Premiership, who gets less than 20,000 hits. Third - a google search of all the hits, combined, for every other midfielder in the Arsenal reserve squad who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. These players combined rack up a little more than 20,000 hits. Merida is, by far, the most notable player in the Arsenal Reserves squad without an article (I agree that 90% of the reserves squad is non-notable, by the way) and so I think that despite the fact that he has never made an first-team appearance for Arsenal, he is still notable enough for an article. ugen64 05:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When he plays for a notable team then he's a notable player, not before. The standards of inclusion for athletes on Wikipedia are very broad but shouldn't be abused by including people who simply don't qualify. Nick mallory 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying the following: "If an athlete has not played for a notable team, then he is not a notable player, full stop"? ugen64 06:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just repeating what the firmly established Wikipedia policy is regarding such sportsmen. Unless they've done something really noteworthy, they have to have played in a fully professional league or at the top level of amateur sports. There are exceptions to this, but this guy isn't one of them. Notability isn't simply a question of google hits. How can a footballer who hasn't played a proper game be notable in their sport, it makes no sense, what about a painter who'd never painted a picture? Nick mallory 08:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but in the world of business sports, isn't buzz and marketing as important as actual playing the sport? This is an unfortunate turn of events for fans of sports, but an unmistakable feature of notability today. I haven't decided if I will comment directly here or not, but I want this point clarified.--Cerejota 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is buzz and marketing as important as playing the actual sport? No. Never. But maybe that's just me. Nick mallory 10:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has "played a proper game" - in fact he played in the 2006 U-17 Championship (as a 16 year old) and won the 2007 U-17 Championship. in the past, big clubs have paid upwards of 2 million pounds for players based on performances in youth tournaments alone, which IMO makes them notable competitions, and therefore players who won honours at those competitions are notable. Case in point: Carlos Vela made 0 first-team appearances for Chivas. He helped Mexico win the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Cup. A few months later, Arsenal bought him for 2.5 million pounds. Also, English players seem to have an inherent disadvantage because the reserve teams are not professional - in Spain and Germany, the reserve teams are professional (see VfB Stuttgart II, Real Madrid Castilla) but does that really make a Stuttgart reserve team player more notable than an Arsenal reserve team player? (if I recall correctly, Stuttgart have never made the Champions League final while Arsenal have...) ugen64 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketers who've played for their country at under 19 level are not considered notable unless they've played first class cricket. Youth players at football clubs get paid money but if they haven't played for the first team I just don't see how they can be notable. Are you saying all players who've played for their country at youth level should get in? It's not a question of whether the clubs have 'professional' reserve teams, it's whether the player has appeared for the club. Nick mallory 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you saying all players who've played for their country at youth level should get in?" No. Read what I wrote again. "in the past, big clubs have paid upwards of 2 million pounds for players based on performances in youth tournaments alone, which IMO makes them notable competitions, and therefore players who won honours at those competitions are notable."

"It's not a question of whether the clubs have 'professional' reserve teams, it's whether the player has appeared for the club." Under the current criteria, any player who makes a first-team appearance for a professional club is notable. Therefore, a player who makes 1 appearance for VfB Stuttgart II then becomes injured and retires from football is considered "notable", while a player who makes 20 appearances for Arsenal F.C. Reserves and captains their country's U-19 team to a victory at the UEFA U-19 Championship (for example) is not necessarily considered as such... I was just pointing out that disparity. ugen64 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a disparity. It's just the accepted notability rule here. Age group competitions don't cut it. Appearances for the second team don't cut it. Appearances for the first team in the professional league do. Are you saying anyone who's appeared for a First class cricket club's second team should get an article? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Nick mallory 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell it out for you. VfB Stuttgart II is a reserve team of VfB Stuttgart. Arsenal F.C. Reserves is a reserve team of Arsenal FC. According to Wikipedia policy (first-team appearances for professional teams = notable), someone who plays for VfB Stuttgart II is considered more notable than someone who plays for Arsenal F.C. Reserves. Can you give me a good reason why this is so? ugen64 08:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the rest of your statement... "Are you saying anyone who's appeared for a First class cricket club's second team should get an article?" - actually, I've never watched a game of cricket in my life, so I'd be the last person to say anything at all about Wikipedia policy regarding cricketers. The extent of my argument is this: some (very very few) footballers who have not played in a fully professional league can be notable for other reasons. if I looked through every reserve team in the Premiership, I could find maybe 5 players (that's a generously high estimate) who fit that description. for some reason, people seem to read my argument as "all reserve players are notable" (hardly) or "all youth team players are notable" (nope). I'm just saying that there is actually not a "line" so to speak. the key word here is "notable": there is no policy on Wikipedia that people have to be "professional footballers" (of course that is a guideline, and one that works in 99.9% of cases). you might notice that it says at the very top of all the notability guidelines: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". that's all I'm saying - there are some very occasional exceptions and IMO this is one of them. ugen64 13:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ugen64's assertions of notability. T Rex | talk 07:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice if he makes a fully professional appearance later in his career. Prospects and "buzz" are not enough. Oh, and he didn't win the U-20 championships, his team did. - fchd 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played a game in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if DRV overturned it, then it's likely a keep. Also this person is notable and newsworthy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't agree with your line of argument in saying "if DRV overturned it, then it's likely a keep", but that's possible because I like to make up my own mind on these things. Anyway, as a counterexample, I once asked for a deleted footballer to be overturned by DRV, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noureddine_Maamria. The goal was to make sure that full consensus had been achieved. The overturning wasn't a "keep" in and of itself, just a call to double check. In that case, it was agreed that the article should be deleted. That would be, in my opinion, the right decision here also. Robotforaday 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deleting today does not mean that when notability is achieved, an article can not return. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merida is the subject of multiple articles by multiple reliable sources. If, in the future, somebody talks about that wonderkid who was deemed to be "the next big thing" but suddenly disappeared from the radar, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to find this article about him here. Yonatan ^talk 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no professional appearances. --Angelo 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is invalid and probaly a form of facruft/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He might not be notable as a sports player, but he is notable as a prospective sports player. The sources support this. To deny the notability is original research.--Cerejota 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's just following WP:BIO to the letter. The subject of the article doesn't meet the criteria, so he's non-notable. And as for the suggestion of the previous poster using Original Research, I suggest you re-read WP:BIO and WP:OR. - fchd 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This player has not yet played in a fully professional league, and that, by consensus, is the recognised objective criteria for notability. I can name hundreds of players who are just as much the "next big thing" as this one, and I don't believe they're notable either. When he makes it - THEN he will be notable. Robotforaday 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Robotforaday 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Robotforaday and Storm Rider. Being a talented youth player is insufficient for notability but the article can be brought back if and when he appears for the first team in the league. --Malcolmxl5 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, recreate when he does something other than show promise. Darrenhusted 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that he seems to be one of the most promising youngsters in Europe, and as such demands a fair amount of media coverage and should be noted by Wikipedia. aLii 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Malik Mujahid[edit]

no evidence of any notability. The closest thing to any notability is a trivial note in some school newspaper Sefringle^Talk 04:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article states, with sourcing, that he is President of the Council of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC), that in 1990 he won the Outstanding Academic Book of the Year Award from the American Library Association, and that he is on the Board of Directors of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions. Certainly notable.--Cerejota 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for copyihng the article, though you haven't expalined how the article establishes notability--Sefringle^Talk 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stub. Stub articles are short (duh!). However, those three items I listed are certainly a claim to notability. I am actually changing my vote to a speedy keep, because notability is established.--Cerejota 05:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per my votes on Sefringle's today's AfD nominations here and here. Also per Cerejota. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cerejota. These are certainly claims to notability, with the first (local religious council) the weakest. Numerous Google Books results. He was involved in the creation of Radio Islam, the first daily syndicated US radio program for Muslims. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. Based on the nom's other AFDs today I am suspicious of WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are voting based on the nominator rather than the value of the article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Where are the independent sources? (Maybe some of the books?) Where are the sources that are "reliable" by Wikipedia standards? Given all the sources we have, there seems evidence enough of notability ([WP:N]]), and I'm convinced proper sourcing is possible in this case, which I think is enough under WP:N. Noroton 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability established, could use more sources . T Rex | talk 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cerejota. A few more sources would help though. DraxusD 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Cerejota. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cant see multiple 3rd party RS's in the reference section. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per above. ITAQALLAH 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He has a reference in the Dallas Morning News, but the Chicago Sun tiTimes article just says he is a friend of Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens ). Besides that there is a campus paper and newsletters or websites of organizations he is a member of. Very borderline, and better references could sway my vote. Edison 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dallas Morning News wrote about it. Notable for a keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeran Lock[edit]

No assertion of notability, reads like advertising. Gilliam 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, search of Google News Archive and Google Books turns up few independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Roughly 70 ghits but it's quality not quantity that counts. As creator I stand by this one. No advertising intent; pruned for that reason. will try to prune some more. Today's 24 hours 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established/found outside directory listings & press releases Corpx 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable cites can be added and red links removed per WP:HEY. Bearian 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bearian (and others)' concerns addressed in last update. Please review. Today's 24 hours 10:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies broadcast by Nickelodeon[edit]

WP:NOT Indiscriminiate information, list of loosely associated topics. As the title says, a list of every film ever broadcast by Nickelodeon. Who cares if Nickelodeon showed Ferris Bueller's Day Off last September anyway? Saikokira 03:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, pure listcruft. Nothing but a list of loosely associated topics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia, listcruft, and loosely-associated list. Useight 04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional reserarch--Sefringle^Talk 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypersonic delete Why are we even debating this obviously non-encyclopedic entry? Some admin please WP:SNOWBALL this listcrufty aberration.--Cerejota 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? recommend deletion. Guroadrunner 08:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete blatant listcruft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraxusD (talk • contribs)
Delete — Not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & comments.--Targeman 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 12:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 14:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. WP:SNOW
Delete This is listcruft and possibly original research. It could be considered unencyclopedic, too. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to call it cruft is nothing short of an understatement. Resolute 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just chiming in to say, yeah, snow this. --Haemo 00:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It always brings tears to my eyes when the WikiCabal works :D--Cerejota 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author may not have been aware that Ferris Bueller was not a made-for-TV film. Although I'm no fan of the kid-stuff that permeates Wikipedia, like the 400 articles for Buffy and every other TV series, the movies made specifically by and for the Nickelodeon network are notable. Obviously, a feature-length film is going to be different than a ten minute episode of a TV show. I won't say "strong keep" because I have a feeling this exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. If not, then "strong keep". Each film inevitably becomes a DVD and ends up in the stream of commerce. As a list of full length films, this is more worthwhile than an episode guide to a TV series. Mandsford 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slime it Cruftacious in the extreme. If it wasn't snowing before, it definitely is now. Blueboy 96 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what fun it is to ride in a one-horse open sleigh... --Targeman 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this before someone starts singing Oh the weather outside is frightful.... Bearian 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...but the fire is so delightful, and since we've no place to go, let it snow, let it... ahem *cough* --Targeman 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete To long of a list. Who's up for a SNOWBALL fight? -FrogTape 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and ban the user responsible for creating the article in the first place. Burntsauce 18:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, why ban? Why not condemn the user to be named in WP:LISTCRUFT as an example of what not to do? ;).--Cerejota 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, first condemn them to LISTCRUFT... AND THEN BAN! MUAHAHAHAHAHA! -FrogTape 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full use of rights under WP:CENSOR warning: I am a sick man, all this talk brought to mind:Snowballing (sexual practice)... nasty... :P--Cerejota 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerejota: Holy fucking shit man, I was eating!!! X( --Targeman 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hurry up anbd close this debate soon? FrogTape 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, coherent as a topic. Everyking 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Treichel[edit]

Likely non notable academic, no information provided to set this person apart from any other chemistry professor. Sorted as part of Wikipedia: Wikiproject Notability. Daniel J. Leivick 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, accomplished academic but not really more notable than average, from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an informative article, probably done by an unsophisticated student. but he is Helfaer Professor of Chemistry at the University of Wisconsin a named full professorship at one of the principal universities of the world. People don't get there without multiple reviews of their work by their peers, included at least 3 major ones that judged him worthy of being promoted at a major university to the highest rank a university can offer. No "average scientist" gets anywhere near that. the publication of more then 170 papers in scientific journals. WebofScience finds 178, of which the five most cited have been cited 224, 161, 157, 126, and 119 times, with 10 articles altogether having over 100 citations. 40 publications cited 41 times or more, an h-factor of 40. Fifteen papers in Journal of the American Chemical Society, the top general chemistry journal in the world. Sixty-one in Journal of Organometallic Chemistry, 32 in Inorganic Chemistry. each the top specialized journal in their fields. This is clear evidence of acceptance by his peers as a notable body of work.

(He also wrote a widely used textbook, a separate consideration of notability)

I don't expect everyone to have access to WebofScience, but everyone does have access to Google Scholar, which shows much the same. The people sorting in Wikiproject Notability should know enough to judge the subject , not the article--the project page WP:WPNN says very clearly to check beyond the article, to include Google Scholar, and to use deletion as the last resort. DGG (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The long pub list and named chair at good research university would already be enough for a weak keep from me, but a textbook that has gone through six editions is widely used enough to pass WP:PROF by itself, I think, and it's easy to find course syllabi at many institutions that use it. The article serves an encyclopedic purpose as it's likely that students using his text would look him up. —David Eppstein 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs)
Keep. Strong body of work, published in high-quality journals. Espresso Addict 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per David Eppstein, Espresso Addict, et al. Bearian 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Blazengi[edit]

Likely hoax. Was originally nominated for speedy deletion under A3, and contested. Fails so-called "Google test" with zero results. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that something like this doesn't get any Google hits is strong enough evidence of a hoax. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this wasn't a hoax, the "contesting" on the talk page isn't any reason to keep this; in fact it gives reason to the contrary. -WarthogDemon 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of any reliable source, off it goes. A properly sourced article would not be deleted, as such a prototype would indeed be notable. I'll note further that the controllers in the picture appear to be Playstation 2 Dual Shocks, adding to the hoax-factor. Hinky. ZZ 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take the initials, reverse them, you have my opinion :) Tualha (Talk) 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious hoax, no GHits. Nuke the images too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no hits on Google, Yahoo, Dogpile. Hoax, for sure. Useight 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If something's completely unsourced and makes a vague reference to 4chan... I'm going to have to go with hoax on this one. Spazure 08:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgive me, /v/, for killing your dreams. --Guess Who 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Ivan Aguilar-Cano[edit]

WP:NOT memorial. Hundreds of kids each year go missing and are murdered. That does not establish notability. Coverage is mostly local coverage. Prod contested by creator of article who believes that being an admin confers greater respect than regular users. hbdragon88 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT memorial says "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered". Are you saying myself, whoever created this article, and the many newspaper writers who wrote the many articles about his death all his relatives or friends? That's nonsense. --Purple hills 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're interpreting the text too literally. The "friends and relatives" is mostly aimed towards people to probably would write about their deceased close ones. Empahsis should be laid on the second line, "notable besides being fondly remembered," which at current this person currently doesn't meet. hbdragon88 04:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is indeed a horrible, sad crime - but that doesn't confer notability, in the context of Wikipedia. See also WP:NOTE. If later events render the incident notable (as, for example, with Megan's Law and its Namesake, Megan Kanka), then this would become background in the context of a broader, notable issue. ZZ 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can you point to the guideline which says 'mostly local' coverage does not establish notability? There are many murdered and kidnapped children who are notable because of the media coverage of the crime, and this sad murder does have a lot of media coverage. Deletion is probably premature as the murder is two weeks old and any number of factors, such as the mother's request for a special immigration visa to return to the U.S. after burying her son in their native Guatemala, the fact that the main suspect was a registered sex offender, and the fact that a public defender has been appointed even though the suspect has not been officially charged with anything, could make this event become national news. Scarykitty 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#NEWS, if it suddenly carches like wildfire then an article would be warranted, but not now. hbdragon88 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing demonstrating greater notability for this murder victim than any of the other hundreds of US murder victims daily. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we had an article for every sad child murder that got media coverage, we would turn into wikicrimelog... Sometimes, its hard to wikilawyer, but rules be rules. :(--Cerejota 09:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. the_undertow ^talk 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No "long-term historical notability of persons and events" established Corpx 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better yet, speedy delete as there is not a single reliable source in the article to speak of. Burntsauce 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. The death of a four year old is a tragedy, but each one does not automatically become notable enough for an encyclopedia article. No evidence was presented in the article that the disappearance and death was a major news story like the similar case of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a crime blog, and it is not a site for memorials to dead people who were not notable before their death. Edison 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to vote here? This was probably the most reported murder in the Louisville area in years. It has been on the front page of the papers multiple times and leads off every local news broadcast most nights for weeks. Why does it have to be CNN-level news to have a Wikipedia article? They are very arbitrary in what they choose to report. His disapearance, death and the investigation are important on a local scale. I think people who don't live here are jumping to the wrong conclusion that this is just another crime log. --Purple hills 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt have to be CNN-level news. I just dont think there is any "long-term historical notability" for this person Corpx 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The time he has been in the news is almost unprecidented, for this area you have to go back to see Mel Ignatow or Shanda Sharer, 20 and 15 years ago, to see murders/murder victims of this importance. We have no articles on any of the hundreds of people murdered in the Louisville area between 1992 (Sharer) and now, as far as I know. It is because of this that I think he is of long-term note. I do not see the need to delete this article. Surely 1 such article per 15 years is allowable? --Purple hills 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Have improved the article to show media coverage from the AP and non-Louisville media. Can someone who knows these things tell me what I need to do now? I can add more but I don't want to waste work if the article will just be deleted. --Purple hills 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) - I'm from Louisville. It's possible that the crime itself will become notable based on its emerging details, but I don't see how this child will ever become notable as a subject for an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not a memorial). If the story of the murder itself accumulates enough notability, the murder and surrounding events may become worthy of an article (see Trinity murders or Standard Gravure shooting). I do think we need to see more than just local coverage for this to become notable in an encyclopedic sense; otherwise, it's a murder that can be considered comparable to many other similar murders that occur in an ongoing sense in the United States. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly a memorial article.--JForget 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthyness does not equate to long-term notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS (policy) and WP:NOTNEWS (not policy, but the opinion of numerous editors, including this one). I'd suggest that for the moment the authors write a piece for Wikinews instead; if in the future the case proves to have long-term impact the Wikipedia article can always be resurrected. Iain99 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The boy is notable for only one event, for that, he should be redirected to the article that talks about his murder, if any exists.--Kylohk 12:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been cleaned appropriately.-Wafulz 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XMU (XM)[edit]

Speedy delete. Worst example of blatant advertising I've ever seen; if it's not advertising then the text was clearly copied and pasted from a promotional page. I had this page up for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed. Chardish 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag it again. Unlike proposed deletions, the creator can't remove a speedy deletion tag. Anyway, speedy delete as blatant spam. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but it wasn't the creator who removed the tag. Am I misunderstanding the policy? - Chardish 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just looked at the article history and you got me there. TPH seems to have taken care of it with a new tag, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, so tagged. (Gotta love Twinkle...) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep, article reads better now, but I'm still not sure if it's notable. XM stations seem to be pretty much inherently notable though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure it needs to be deleted but definitely needs improvement in relation to peacock terms, see WP:Peacock aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. Just by being a XM Satellite Radio station it's notable, but it needs a re-write to not seems like an advertisement. (Update: I just removed the gigantic "Current Programs" section which looked like a copyvio advert) --Oakshade 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Cleaned Up. Concur with the above. I can get a program schedule at XM's website - that's what it's for. This is a notable station, broadcasting on XM for several years - but the article needs to be in that context. A listing of some programs is apporpriate, but only to show the types of programming typical of the station - and it should not necessarily be limited to programs currently on the air, especially if past programming was notable in its own right. Revised to Keep, per below ZZ 03:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which version are you referring to? Right now there are no programs listed and it's just a stub describing the station. --Oakshade 04:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So noted - I saw the previous version and got carried away. The current stub, though badly in need of expansion, addresses my issues - so we should Keep it. ZZ 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps I'm missing something - this article is one of a large collection of articles about these channels. Why are they not all marked for deletion? One article containing short descriptions of all the channels might be appropriate, though it strikes me as too ad-like to be encyclopedic. But I can't see any reason to keep a whole lot of separate articles, one per channel. Tualha (Talk) 03:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no reason we should keep a roster of all of the ever-changing XM stations. Maybe a few of the notable ones, like Fred. I see we actually have a template listing all of them, what overkill. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite - It's a puff piece now, but there are currently articles for each of the XM channels. I think it's noteworthy in that respect, but perhaps some more could be added to it.--Fightingirish 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite No reason to delete clearly notable page if rewrite is possible.--Cerejota 06:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whats so notable about it? It is straight up advertsing. Even the external links point to the intent. Consaka 08:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a channel in a popular satellite radio medium. Thats notable.--Cerejota 08:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite - I agree, there are some channels currently listed as fluff. However, this is why there is a stub tag listed for such case. TravKoolBreeze 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The level of advertising is now down to the normal level for radio station stubs, band stubs, and the like. Ther is at least one compeltely independant source cited. Expansion with sourced content would be good, but this is an acceptable stub as it stands. DES ^(talk) 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Only inasmuch as, as far as a stub for an XM radio channel goes, it looks clean enough now. But I tend to agree with Dhartung's comments above. I don't know that XM channels, in and of themselves, warrant their own articles. Talking out both sides of my mouth, I know. Douglasmtaylor 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would probably vote keep just out of the fact that all XM stations have stubs. I think we seriously need to consider merging these articles by genre of music, though (similar to how XM's channels are currently sorted.) But usual procedure is to DB blatant spam that would need a complete rewrite, which this article was before it was turned into a stub. Not sure how I feel about all that. - Chardish 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving an article is alway the right thing to do. This case was a content issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep but improve If All of the other XM channels have an article, why shouldn't this one? FrogTape 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All XM Channels have an article, just re-write the article.--NightRider63 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Candystand Extreme Air Hockey World Cup[edit]

No evidence of notability is provided; prod removed without comment without creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 01:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a flash game competition conducted over the internet - No notability established anywhere and I cant find any either Corpx 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline spam. Douglasmtaylor 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... Can this be speedied somehow? -- Kicking222 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, not notability; no article, I should hope. --Haemo 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G4. Xoloz 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyotei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability (per WP:BIO). I can't find any independent reviews. This page is basically a list of links to the artist's online work. Mark Chovain 01:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Woops - This should probably have been a G4 CSD (recreation of deleted content) Mark Chovain 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as noted by the nominator. Nyttend 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - tagged so. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:Shell Kinney (A7). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montaous walton[edit]

(Contested prod.) Unfortunately, I can't find any information on Google to support the inclusion of this article. There is one newspaper article, and it's not about him, specifically. College players are not automatically notable. Delete per WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google only returns two minor references, he has not recieved any significant awards or honors...he doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria at all. Calgary 01:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page creator blanked the page, removing both the AfD and the CSD templates. I reverted. --Charlene 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. He actually blanked it twice; it's been reverted twice and the editor warned. --Charlene 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an autobiography: Author of the article is Mwalton1 and the talk page says “im sorry i just wanted to put true information about me on here as far as my baseball career i hope its ookay to keep it on.” ●DanMS • Talk 03:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite with extreme prejudice per talk page. Tualha (Talk) 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hmm...interesting. I've never seen an article about a high school that doesn't exist yet. Sr 13 03:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Reno High School[edit]

The school doesn't yet exist (WP:CRYSTAL) and no claim for notability is made (WP:NOTE). --Cerejota 01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no reason for existance. It is only notable to people in N. Miami.SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL policy. It's hard enough to sell notability of schools that exist... Shalom ^Hello 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, perhaps the fact it will be located on a former superfund site is notable. Pats Sox Princess 02:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis subject appears non-notable. --Stormbay 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why didn't the nominator notify the article's creator on that editor's talk page that there's an AfD? It's a basic, decent, civil thing to do. Noroton 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AFD, "How to list articles for deletion" section: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Noroton 03:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your quoted text indicates, the nominator has not violated any requirements, and your being upset is not germane to this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would Dhartung know I was upset? And if Dhartung's concern is comments being germane, that editor's comments would have gone on my talk page. Noroton 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I appreciate your comment Dhartung. Noroton, please assume good faith this was not intentionally done. I am doing it now.--Cerejota 03:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, it wasn't your good faith I was questioning, certainly not as WP:AGF defines it. Thank you for notifying the editor. Noroton 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why you called me indecent and uncivil?--Cerejota 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Although I'm trying to look at my comments from your point of view and I can see why you might think that. I don't think you're indecent or uncivil, and your promptly notifying the creator of the article was proof of that. I'm sorry my comments came out so harshly.Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alll coool then......--Cerejota 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I created the article after I saw that there was an article for North Miami Senior High School and other schools in the district, Janet Reno High School is part of the same school district, so it seemed like it was a reasonable addition to Wikipedia. Also notable that it is being built on a superfund site that has not yet been cleaned. While I also don't want to see wikipedia filled with useless trivia, I think any public school history/info is well suited to this centralized user-driven encyclopedia, it is the kind of subject that will over time may have a lot of contributions from people with interesting knowledge and interest in their schools. --RandomStuff 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ (see "Changed Vote" below) per WP:CRYSTAL: event is "notable and almost certain to take place" since building the schools was a goal of the municipal government and approval has been given by the city council, the mayor, the school district and the federal EPA says the land is OK for use. "Oct. 1--City approves new schools plan / After arguments that threatened to derail the plan, the North Miami City Council unanimously approved last week to trade city land for new schools. [...] All the schools will be built by the county school board. Previously, the plan was for developers of Biscayne Landing to build the high schools under city supervision, then turn them over to the school board. The new North Miami Senior High School would have 3,660 students, while the smaller Janet Reno High School would have 1,560." [[58]

Apparently the land is owned by the city, with the developer leasing it, and building the school is a requirement the city placed on the developer. Actually, the city government has decided to take over building it, so I assume the developer is only paying for it. Even as a proposal, the thing seems to be noteworthy. Oh, and the school district is on board as well:

"Turnkey construction by the City of North Miami of a second new 1,560-seat high school on City-owned land under a long-term lease agreement with the City with a projected opening in 2008. [...] The school will be near Biscayne Landing, a new development [...]"[59]

Here's a caveat though: So far, only 91 units for the Biscayne Landing development have been sold. This article [60] mentions that sales may be going a bit slowly. I don't know how that affects the prospects for the school. This article indicates the city government will bend over backwards for them: [61] This one indicates the county won't: [62] Perhaps if the developer folds the money won't be there to build Janet Reno High, but I'm speculating. Prospects seem very good, but it seems to me it's a judgment call as to whether it's "almost certain". Noroton 06:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CRYSTAL doesn't support the inclusion of this school at this stage as a separate article: it is not "notable and almost certain to take place", because not even the ground work has been laid. When and if the building starts, then we might include it if notable. WP:CRYSTAL's spirit and intention is that inaccurate content doesn't fall through the cracks, what if the school name changes? what if the location changes? what if it doesn't get built?. If there is notability around the Biscayne Landing (a focus of COI edits, which is how I go wind of this school article), then it belongs in Biscayne Landing, not on its own. WP:CRYSTAL is crystal clear.--Cerejota 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Construction itself isn't the standard -- "notable and almost certain to take place" is.Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote: Merge to Biscayne Landing (Delete) We don't have enough information on how this is supposed to be paid for if the sales at Biscayne Landing don't go through. Until we do, or until we have some other reason that it is "almost certain to take place" we should hold off on an article. It's possible that the high school project could snag on some planning board approval. I think there's certaily enough information the article linked to and that I linked to above to make the Biscayne Landing project notable whether it succeeds or sinks into the muck, and this would be a worthy and necessary section of it. Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article is new I think it deserves more than 5 days to be expanded. Plus, for the students and teachers it is summer vacation so many of those that are most knowledgable about the subject may not be around to update it. I say give it several months, well into the fall, and then reconsider the issue. Postcard Cathy 07:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might not realize this, because of your comment, but subject of this page doesn't even exists. In other words, we cannot wait for fall so that students provide content, because there are no students, as the school hasn't even started being built. Please consider this information, because it seems you don't have it.--Cerejota 07:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion cerejota is still the same and for the same reasons. So, it won't be students and teachers but the various school district officials. See the forest through the trees or whatever that saying is. The point was the most knowledgeable people are on vacation or probably are. Those that aren't on vacation are busy preparing for school to open. Give the people time to find the article and expand it when they can. Postcard Cathy 08:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota brings up a good point about conflict of interest. If Wikipedia is used to lend credence to real estate agents trying to sell homes in Biscayne Landing, then the readers aren't helped and Wikipedia is definitely hurt. If the article is deleted or redirected to the Biscayne Landing article, it can certainly be revived later.Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comment - Dude, they're building this school on a landfill site ? Janet Reno would be proud. Guroadrunner 08:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. Mowsbury 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, come back if it exists. >Radiant< 14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete without prejudice. A not-yet built facility could be notable if the plans and construction receive significant coverage. But the article as it stands has no reliable, independent sources verifying notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - Nothing to establish notability now Corpx 17:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Not sure it would be notable even if it were built. New England ^{(C) (H)} 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, although I have no doubt it will be nn when it actually opens its doors. Eusebeus 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--and it will be difficult for a new school to demonstrate notability, since the factors usually used are alumni and awards (athletic or academic). DGG (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it will be incredibly easy for anyone who follows the news in that area to find several newspaper articles about the official plans for the school, approval of the school by the board of education, construction of the school and opening of the school. All will be covered by independent, reliable news organizations. Noroton 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and footnote into Janet Reno. 70.55.88.166 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs)
Delete - schoolcruft, all of them. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another entirely non-notable school. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to North Miami, Florida until the school actually exists. For now a redirect is sufficient. Burntsauce 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the school doesn't even exist yet. --Android Mouse 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CzechWar[edit]

Look like a non notable third party add on. No evidence provided to the contrary Daniel J. Leivick 00:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparently it's not notable and not encyclopedic, unless I'm not seeing something. Shalom ^Hello 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Daniel and Shalom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search shows up no reliable sources for this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a bit of advert with some links to benefit.
Speedy delete as spam. Bearian 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Harlowraman 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not important (per WP:N), no independent references. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising and fails notability guidelines. Bob talk 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already redirected to School prank. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PEN15[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, nonsense, original research, unsourced, etc. Created by a single-purpose account, what a surprise. Saikokira 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no claim to notability, and the fact that it tries to recognize an original author says a mouthful. Calgary 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was this meant for WP:Sandbox (look at history)? In any case, it's incoherent nonsense and should be deleted. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 01:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nonsense. Pure nonsense. Not notable, and I'm sure this article was created by "Patrick M. Jordan". Knowing who a creator of a non notable prank tells you something.See changed vote.SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even consistent with google search results for this term. VoltronForce 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no asserted notability, nonsense. -N 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does it even need discussion? Tualha (Talk) 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable prank. Wikipedia is not for things made up on day. Useight 04:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really, REALLY wanted to say db-vandal, but then I read it - it's not vandalism, unfortunately. Anyway, to echo, this thing stinks horribly of WP:NFT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School prank. I saw it mentioned there. Note that Pen15 redirects to that article.---Lenticel ^(talk) 06:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ahaha, can't believe it stayed up for over a month. Someone even placed a wikify tag on it. T Rex | talk 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lenticel, thanks for the catch, and shame on me for not searching. Tualha (Talk) 09:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lenticel also Guroadrunner 09:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT --Malcolmxl5 14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lentice. Carom 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lenticel.SpecialAgentUncleTito 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability in such cases is a judgment call, policy neither requires nor forbids such articles. The consensus in this instance is clear. DES ^(talk) 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NOT a memorial. Has not gained any notability other than having been kidnapped. Based on my reading of articles in Category:Murdered American children, it seems like notability is established in having legislation named after the person. This Williams person doesn't appear to have anything like that. hbdragon88 00:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established by having major celebrities speak out for her. -N 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if she's referenced in the news, people will look her up for information. Wikipedia always has served that historical resource function and should continue to. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has gained widespread media attention, and well-known celebrities spoke out for her. THAT is NOTABLE.SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Nom's reasons for deletion are rather shaky. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something can be verified and based on reliable sources doesn't mean it necessarily belongs here, e.g. Allison Stokke, Qian Zhijun, can't think of anymore right now). I don't see how it's "shaky," they're based on WP:NOT, which when I last checked was policy...checks...still policy. I should add that it's WP:NOT#NEWS in addition to WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. hbdragon88 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that NOT#MEMORIAL and NOT#NEWS apply here, since the person in question seems to be notable beyond the scope of one single event. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is? I read the article. She's just a missing person. The celebrities only spoke out because she was missing. hbdragon88 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still, she passes WP:BIO and WP:V. Therefore I see no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Now we're going in circles. I demonstrated examples of articles that, despite being verifable and meeting WP:BIO, were still deleted. hbdragon88 04:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all she meets WP:BIO. Second she meets WP:V. Finally, I think the fact that wikipedia has as stated above has always served as a historical reference certainly to some extent justifys her inclusion. I don't think there is any questioning her notability or verifiability. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Wouldnt this be better off as "Abduction of Christina Williams" on wikinews because this person is just known for one incident. Is there any "considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events" for this person? Corpx 17:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being verifiable is not enough to have a Wikipedia article. The subject must also be notable, and per recent AFD results and the policy WP:NOT#NEWS, the subject must be more than a newspaper story, since something can be newsworthy without being encyclopedic. Other than being a crime victim, she was a non-notable 13 year old and thus fails to satisfy WP:BIO. What remains is a memorial article, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. No news articles are presented to show it was a big news item, but if they were found, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a crime archive. Edison 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep celebrity attention when reported in the media makes for notability. DGG (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt notability superceded by WP:NOT#NEWS ? Corpx 01:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS says in part "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." (emphasis added) That means that more than mere appearance in the news is needed, but provides very little guidance on what more. Essentially, a belief that there will be some long-term notability for one reason or another is my take on what more is needed, and that belief can form in different ways, the most common of which are reflected in notability guidelines. So I wouldn't say that WP:NOT#NEWS trumps notability, it just interacts with it kinda wierdly. (WP:NOT#NEWS also says that we should be writing encyclopedia articles, not news articles.) GRBerry 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choctaw Three[edit]

WP:BLP reasons. Although this case did make the news, it was not the subject of continued media interest. In fact, it was apparently just a brief curiosity in the news. -N 00:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose it may have been a notable event, but it just barely made news, and a tie goes to the BLP deletion policy. Shalom ^Hello 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being unusual is not the same as being notable, and that includes crimes. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Danras seems to be the lead editor for the article, perhaps someone should ask them for comment. Guroadrunner 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is substantially the same as when I originally wrote it. I already have the article’s contents posted on a different web site along nearly a thousand other wrongful conviction cases. I would rather Wikipedia not compete with it. I have not had problems with this article, but in general the Wikipedia articles I wrote require far more time responding to minor or pointless criticism than writing an article requires. I suppose Wikipedia is a better forum for chat than articles, and that articles just provide some content about which one can chat.

The Choctaw Three is not the most interesting case, but it is the only one in which people were convicted for murdering a non-existent person. There are only about 5000 U.S. murders a year including many that are unsolved or little reported on. Since Wikipedia has 1.8 million articles and growing, I would think every reported murder case would be notable. However, some feel that only the dozen or so that make national news are notable. --Danras 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia ≠ United States, and newsworthy ≠ notable. I don't necessarily see a problem with an article on a well-known crime per se, although often such articles are created whilst the newsprint is still wet. However, these articles are always subject to being revisited at a later date... and per WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary, if the crime is no longer considered notable, the article should go. EyeSerene^TALK 09:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to me to fail WP:NOT#INFO as the people involved/the events have no long-term historical notability. --Malcolmxl5 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - notability is not a short-term thing. EyeSerene^TALK 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is currently not WP:BLP compliant, due to inadequate sourcing. If the claims are true, then a BLP compliant article could be written using solid sourcing - but it wouldn't have to mention the names of the convicted individuals. Once that is written, we can consider notability - solid sourcing is likely to be better evidence on notability than the current article demonstrates. The sole link is clearly to an advocacy organization, and one source doesn't uphold notability. GRBerry 21:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki golf[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, self-referential, and concerns an apparently non-notable game. John254 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needs two to play. Wikipedia isn't for things made in school or work one day. VoltronForce 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NFT. We actually had (and may still have) a page about this game in WP:FUN. WP:ASR also applies, per nom. Shalom ^Hello 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that's actually a Criteria for Speedy Deletion. --Wingsandsword 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this completely fails the idea of verifiability. Nyttend 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT, was just about to nominate this myself when I reloaded the page and saw it had been done already. --Wingsandsword 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a prime example of something made up in school one day. Lets snowball this discussion. It is obvious where it is going. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is virtually identical to Six degrees of Wikipedia. ●DanMS • Talk 03:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencylcopediac article--Sefringle^Talk 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Oyster guitarist 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki somewhere then delete - Someone put it in a sandbox, this is strange enough for notability somewhere, just not Wikipedia. Overall vote is Delete. Guroadrunner 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE. --Malcolmxl5 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Replace with another game - guessing how many seconds it takes for the folks at AfD to point out that this game is mentioned in WP:NFT as a very special example of what not to do. Instead, Delete like so many times before. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator for all the reasons stated above. Burntsauce 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen-60[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable skateboarding maneuver. John254 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a skate park one day. BassoProfundo 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and has no refrences. Oyster guitarist 06:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on! - this article was AFD'd within minutes of its creation, probably by someone on New Page Patrol. While it looks like it should be deleted, I say give it a little while and see if it gets expanded. If it doesn't, then delete. Guroadrunner 09:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with Guroadrunner. Lets just keep this article for the time being and see whether it can be improved further. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the history, this article is the editor's first contribution. Per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, it would do no harm to conditionally keep this one for now and see where it goes. EyeSerene^TALK 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now, anyway, per above comments - I concur. A bit of coaching of the author might be in order. —Travis ^talk 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I know, a complete reversal) John254 has raised some very valid points, some of which I was ignoring, probably due to my inexperience with the AFD process. I'll try to look "at the big picture" from now on. —Travis ^talk 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Essentially unverifiable articles concerning neologisms which only have meaning to a few people cause grave harm to Wikipedia by reducing the overall quality of the article set. The harm caused by one such article may be minimal; however, a profusion of unverifiable neologisms causes significant aggregate harm. Delaying the AFD nomination for this article would delay its deletion, thereby reducing Wikipedia's quality. It does not appear to be argued that this article has serious encyclopedic value, but rather that, in consideration of not scaring away new users, we must retain an unencyclopedic article. However, might we not scare away new users by not immediately informing them that their first article is unacceptable, instead forbearing any criticism until the user, having worked for a month on writing many such unacceptable articles, has all of their work nominated for deletion in one fell swoop? Merely informing the author of an article concerning an unverifiable neologism of the need to supply multiple third party, reliable sources to meet the requirements of our verifiability policy and notability guideline seems ludicrously inadequate, as the author may simply persist in the creation of more articles that violate our standards, believing there to be no serious consequences. The author may well continue to generate unacceptable articles in good faith, seriously believing that they improve Wikipedia -- that a user is knowingly acting contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental policies doesn't mean they are deliberately trying to cause damage. If an article were problematic merely because of a lack of references, but concerned what appeared to be a notable subject, it might well be advisable to delay an AFD nomination. However, in the case of Glen-60, an article which concerns an obviously unverifiable and extraordinarily uncommon neologism, an immediate AFD nomination, though necessarily harsh, is also the most honest approach in informing the author that content of this nature is unacceptable on Wikipedia. John254 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have used a prod. this gives some time in case in fact it is sourceable, while letting the ed. know very clearly what is necessary to be done, & a sincere new ed. who cant find material usually let's the article be deleted, thus saving us all this trouble.

I don't think the limited interest of the subject is the least relevant unless it is so limited there are no sources. DGG (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I still stand by my comment above - "do no harm" should apply to editors as well as articles, and I honestly don't believe it does any harm to WP as a whole to give an editor - especially a new editor - a chance to improve their work (where said work is not an outright violation of things that could get WP into trouble like WP:BIO or copyright rules). However, it's been a few days now, the article creator has made no other contributions to WP under that username, and the article shows no sign of being improved... so let's get rid of this unarguably poor article ;) EyeSerene^TALK 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 15:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family porn[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparent neologism. John254 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has problems both with POV and verifiability. Many people would think that this is a reference to incest. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the one reference provided does not even put the words "family" and "porn" next to each other. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has POV and unrefrenced. Oyster guitarist 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Don't delete the article! Firstly, the article actually does have references. Moreover, do to the evolutionary nature of language and the organic growth of language it is important to document so called neologisms. For example, just this year, "Crunk" was added to Webster's dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amateur24 (talk • contribs).

— Amateur24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, its not notable, and supposedly created by another non notable adult entertainment company called Naughty America. The article is kind of funny to read thru though. T Rex | talk 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comment - LMAO! Guroadrunner 09:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no pictures (also there appear to be some questions about whether the term is legitimate). Cedars 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a joke, as the article admits itself - an "apocryphal expression".--Targeman 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT --Malcolmxl5 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete as a neologism. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism and unattributed. Carlosguitar 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO --UntilMoraleImproves 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia's policy on neologisms, and the lack of attribution. Appears to be entirely original research, so can't be accepted here. Not notable anyway. Not verifiable, and although there are ghits for it, they're not exactly reliable sources. So this article can't stay here unless it meets these three criteria, which it fails entirely, so no reason for this content to stay. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...and our act is called the aristocrats." 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Delete I am actually quite shocked that this article is being flagged for deletion. The term family porn has come to be a very well known term in the Calgary Adult Entertainment Scene, and is not Wikipedia the garden where non-mainstream ideas, unattributed cultural movements,ever changing nomenclature are cultivated and exposed. is it not where the unverifiable become verified. Let us not forget that a little known term such as "Donkey Punch" was no more or less a Neologism and Unattributed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.104.33 (talk • contribs).

— 68.144.104.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The article is well-written, it has references and is interesting. No doubt if there are articles on "Donkey Punch", "Facial" (sexual act) this article is just as worthy. Moreover, the article is concise and fun to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.73.70.240 (talk • contribs).

— 70.73.70.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The article has ample references and opens the doors to further discussion. It is no ones place to decide whether or not any particular topic is "relevant.". Keep the article! Amateur24 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author of this article seems to like the word "apocryphal" but doesn't know its meaning. I've just removed it from Donkey punch, but only because the article had survived an AfD. "Apocryphal" means "of dubious veracity; of questionable accuracy or truthfulness; of doubtful authenticity; in the nature of an urban legend" ([63]); probably not what you wanted to say! And no, Wikipedia is not meant to promote, expose, or cultivate anything (What Wikipedia is not). The sexual slang of the "Calgary Adult Entertainment Scene" does not belong here unless it becomes mainstream; and Wikipedia cannot be used as a means to help it become mainstream. --Targeman 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Every "Do not delete" comment has been added by the author of the article. The quantity of "Do not delete" comments does not reflect consensus. BassoProfundo 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've used the {{unsigned}} and {{spa}} tags as appropriate. Normally that's all you should need to do to flag these. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as not notable by user:Stemonitis. Non admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sodartin[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparent neologism. Apparently, we can't speedily delete it; the proposed deletion request would have been declined based on the author's objection to deletion on Talk:Sodartin. John254 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, keep, by all means. We want to have as many articles as we possibly can about words created by some students at a school somewhere, especially when Google has never heard of said words. Let's make sure we have in-depth biographies of every student who ever said it, too. And their pets. Tualha (Talk) 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO/WP:NFT. John254, you may wish to distinguish better between speedy deletion and proposed deletion in future. It is acceptable for article authors to dispute a prod; the next step is AFD, and here we are. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per resons above. Oyster guitarist 06:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly neologism. The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the article even admits that it was made up in school one day, and that it doesn't have a meaning. dilithium-powered delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. DraxusD 08:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol quite amusing the way it admits they made it up.Merkinsmum 10:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT --Malcolmxl5 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer delete but at least it made me smile. Iain99 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a neologism, so it can't be accepted here, but if they really want to get it somewhere on the web, Peevish's online slang dictionary is a far better place than Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (or technically, not for things made up in college). If there are third-party, non-trivial sources that assert the importance of the word then it would be allowed here, but this article meets none of those criteria, and thus, it has to be deleted. But this should go to WP:BJAODN for now. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a tricky one. The real question here is the quality of the sources. The argument for keeping this appears to rest pretty much entirely on a single author, G.V.C. Young. (A google search was also cited, but a simple list of google results can't be a reliable source. Some of the results may be sources, but no one appears to have done the evaluations to say which ones should qualify, if any.) One of the two editors favoring keep states that he couldn't find any significant work by this author in a major university library, nor any other author who cites him. However a "google scholar" search lists multiple works by this author, with multiple citations of some works. A regular web search lists multiple books published by this author, and at least some references to them by others who appear to take him seriously as a researcher. So i feel that I cannot simply discount this set of sources. Thus the reliability of the sources here is a judgment call, and there is no clear consensus to delete either on arguments or on numbers (3:2 for deletion). The article is kept by default, but that is not a consensus endorsement. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skanke[edit]

The article is a hoax and consists of pure fiction. There doesn't even exist a single family called Skanke, and there was never any noble family called Skanke, nor are those using that surname the rulers of Man or anywhere else. See also Talk:Skanke Family Association#Hoax. Luvente 15:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN, rather elaborate hoax at work here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At least a partial hoax by the look of it (ie the info relating to Royal connections). Unfortunately, without that, the article subject becomes non-notable. EyeSerene^TALK 18:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the Manx history works which support the case? They're just to be ignored?Manxruler 10:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These do not appear to be reliable, independent sources per WP:ATT. That would put much of the article in the realm of original research. EyeSerene^TALK 09:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I advise you to read the Norwegian article, which states that there are no documented links to any other country than Norway. Speculation based on similarity in coat of arms, or rather based on the fact that some adopted an existing coa of their liking, does not make the un-special Skanke family the royal family of Man. Luvente 12:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I advise you read the Swedish article [64]. Manxruler 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - see [Google Surname search Skanke] How can there be no surname? Can so many geneology sites be wrong? Shureley shome mishtake. Mike33 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No straw men, please! There are several, unrelated, un-royal, un-noble and un-special families that are using the name Skanke. There is no such thing as the Skanke family which is royal and rulers of Man etc. etc. Support BJAODN. Luvente 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More sources to come - Tomorrow I'll add some more sources, I've requested them, and their on their way to me as we speak. Manxruler 11:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sources" that are original research/propaganda/bullshit published by the "Skanke Family Association", like the other you provided? I rest my case. Luvente 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - More like a book written by the respected historian G. V. C. Young (O.B.E.) and published by Mansk-Svenska Publishing Company Ltd. in Peel, Isle of Man [65]. Its funny how, with absolutely no evidence to the contrary you chose to totally disregard Manx history books. Should not Manx historians have a certain idea of their own history? Stop wrecking the page, removing sourced material is not good editing. Manxruler 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since books by noted and established authors [66] should be considered by all as proper source material I intend to rewrite the article using only said books. That should prove satisfactory to all. It won't change much, the core will be the same, just with a few less details. Since this will require some work, I'll do it tomorrow and leave the repair job on the wrecked article till then. Manxruler 19:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Obviously you don't even read your own dubious "sources". For example the book by Robelin (the only somewhat credible source, although still highly problematic according to Norwegian genealogists, including Tore Hermundsson Vigerust) state the exact opposite of what you are claiming. There are several, not one, Skanke families, and Robelin clearly state that no connection between the various Skanke families and the Isle of Man have been established (page 13). So why do you continue claiming "the" Skanke family is "Irish" and "noble" when they are Norwegian and commoners? Luvente 09:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I actually didn't add Robelin, some else did. But I believe the actual wording is: As far as time has allowed he could not find evidence. Manxruler 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, Robelin actually suggest a link with noble families in Pomerania and Mecklenburg. Still noble. Manxruler 18:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - What kind of "link"? A "link" doesn't make you noble. Either you are noble, or you are not. In 1824 all (former) noble families living in Norway were registered by the Storting. Skanke was not one of them. Anyway, what happened to Man? I presume you are going to change your user name to "Mecklenburg ruler" now? Luvente 23:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this purely a dispute about historians? If so, it has no place on Afd. Both historians should be mentioned in the article with differing opinions. I can probably find 50 respected historians who differ about Scandanavian influence in the north-west of England. Pre norman conquest/post norman conquest/pre/post dublin etc. Encyclopedias echo those facts or nonfacts depending on the historian.

I do have some trouble though, Young has never been quoted by any other Manx historian. I am not saying that his research was bad, but with three libraries this morning Manchester University, Manchester Metropolitan University and Manchester Central Library, I was unable to find a single book from him apart from a paper he wrote for the North West Archeological Society (Volume 5 1993) and not about this subject. Mike33 - t@lk 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a dispute among historians, it is not a special family, or more correctly: a special group of unrelated families sharing the same name, of any kind. The most prominent person with this name in recent times is a rally cross driver and right-wing local politician. Sources cited are amateur genealogists. Amateur genealogy is quite a big industry in Norway, and in the early 20th century it was popular to claim that one's family descended from Viking era kings and so forth. A connection between one of these families and Man has never been established in any way, it is only wishful thinking of some family members. I would guess it exists thousands of families which, like this one, in the past claimed to be the descendants of some kings, based on wishful thinking. Scandinavian influence on the British islands is completely irrelevant for this article, as none of the Skanke families have anything to do with Britain . Luvente 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:ab}}

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML formats[edit]

too much of a POV screed - even reverting most of the POV/OR, there's still a POV Will ^(talk) 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I also see a possible violation of Wikipedia:No original research, perhaps in WP:SYN. Shalom ^Hello 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how possible for these kind of articles that start w/ Comparison to be NPOV. I am talking about Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms and Comparison of C Sharp and Java as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, OR, and even advertising, to a point. This is highly subjective, and if isn't POV after editing, it soon would be. MSJapan 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It seems to be reasonably NPOV to me, presenting well cited claims by both sides, although it's a topic I don't know much about. the wub "?!" 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see it transwiki'd to somewhere, since a lot of work has obviously gone into it. I just don't know where. the wub "?!" 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, OR also advertising. Oyster guitarist 17:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although it does seem fairly NPOV, the entire "comparison" business is original research. EyeSerene^TALK 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be a section in an article dealing w/topic, not it's own article --UntilMoraleImproves 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if it must be kept - Transwiki to Wikibooks - and yes the article does contain original research, which is not permitted here. This should really be on a Microsoft-related Wiki: I'm sure it could go to a Wikia wiki, if someone wants this.

But here, it should be deleted. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Homestar Runner#Teen Girl Squad. Sr 13 03:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Girl Squad[edit]

Now, I know not everyone's going to agree with this, from comments on Talk:Homestar Runner. But I hardly see any of this text as salvagable; the episode descriptions take up almost all of the article. Why should there be episode descriptions? (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) Also, some of the character descriptions are ridiculous and/or too long. "We are led to believe that this popularity is just in her head, though, as she has very little luck getting football players to notice her. However, in Issue 12, she gets "Valentimes" cards from every football player except one." So it just contradicted itself. If you want this kept, please come up with a better argument than the length of the article. — Malcolm (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty much just an overblown plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT). The subject isn't notable enough for a separate article, and would be adequately discussed (from an encyclopedic perspective) with a paragraph within the main article. Leebo ^T/C 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING: Major (but still Wikipedia-wise) fan of Homestar Runner is commenting: Of course it contradicts itself. Any fan of Homestar Runner would know that the comics are Strong Bad's. And Strong Bad frequently contradicts himself. ;) Okay, "fan-rant" over; time for my Wikipedia perspective. I say merge the main parts to ~~the list of secondary Homestar Runner characters~~ World of Homestar Runner OR merge the main parts to Strong Bad because he's the creator of the Teen Girl Squad comics, if it's not there already. I do agree that this doesn't merit it's own article. The HRWiki has one of those anyway. -WarthogDemon 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, like WarthogDemon, have been a long, long time fan of TGS and HSR in general. That said, this article is not encyclopedic. On top of Leebo's point that it is mostly plot summary, the information that is covered in Homestar Runner#Teen Girl Squad is more than an adequate description of TGS - both running jokes and characters. If this article is deleted, it should be replaced with a redirect to HSR#TGS. bwowen ^talk^•^contribs 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homestar Runner. Carom 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bowowen and Carom. The section Bwowen identified is much more encylopedic than this article is, and also doesn't suffer from being a plot summary etc. It's a very amusing part of the whole Strong Bad phenomenon, but I'm not convinced it needs its own article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Teen Girl Squad is one of my favourite Homestar Runner bits, but doesnot need a separate article -- Whpq 22:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selira Motors Ltd.[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, no hits on any search engines, no sources in the article to verify authenticity. This article appears to be a complete hoax. Unless any sources can be cited, or references provided, this article should be deleted, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources. SunStar Net ^talk 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling any of the car names turns up a big fat zilch - it's inconceivable that a European car manufacturer could have zero web presence in this day and age. Iain99 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as possible hoax or that is a very non-notable and likely local private and small company that fails by a lot notability.--JForget 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I put this through the Portuguese Google - nothing. Highly likely to be a hoax. --Malcolmxl5 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable enough.Harlowraman 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contact an authority - if GM Europe or Ford of Europe know about this company (or a Portuguese person), that says something. However, so far I haven't found anything -- anything -- on Google. Lack of website doesn't mean it's officially fake though. Either that or this is a VERY VERY well written hoax article. Guroadrunner 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people involved in spamdexing[edit]

This article is listcruft, unverifiable, and a probable biographies of living persons violation. SunStar Net ^talk 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Finngall ^talk 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly has issues with WP:BLP. hateless 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:BLP. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Attack page. Blueboy 96 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and above; a defamation lawsuit waiting to happen. Bearian 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Bearian cannot be more right. Harlowraman 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somehow I'd think Sublime soul (talk · contribs) should be indefblocked as well ... this is blatant libel. Blueboy 96 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He removed the speedy tag that Finngall put on it as well ... I readded it. Blueboy 96 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Internazionale Milano 2007-08/Friendly Matches details[edit]

Unrelevant list of friendly match reports. Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DIR and personal refusal of match reports for unrelevant matches (especially friendly matches nobody will really remember in the next future). Angelo 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A record of friendly matches?!! No. --Malcolmxl5 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not notable. Punkmorten 07:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 09:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete These are friendly/ exhibition matches being played as warm ups for the coming season with absolutely no relevence to any major trophy Inter will compete for in the coming season. This is a completely unecessary level of coverage. Wikipedia is not a Inter Milan almanac. Robotforaday 16:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ban Ray 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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