Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Neil ☎ 14:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marist Wallball Association[edit]

This article has been speedily deleted, has been reposted, was speedy tagged, had the speedy tag removed, was prodded, had that removed, and is still not notable. It receives no Google hits and does not express notability in the article; it has no reliable sources to indicate that it can meet notability guidelines whatsoever. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SolidPlaid 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Delete per CSD G4 - recreation of deleted material. Also reads somewhat like an advertisment, but not enough for G11 to apply. And, it fails both WP:ORG (WP:SPORT is a rejected policy, so WP:ORG is next best) and WP:VERI (improperly references a Wikipedia article and the organisation's homepage). L337 kybldmstr 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt. Wow! An article for an organization of 30 people whose official Web site is a subpage of a subpage of a discussion group. --Blanchardb 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just noticed that the author of the article, Jah1991 has contributed only to that one article, and also recreated it. So, it may be a G11 (blatant advertising) as well after all. L337 kybldmstr 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: if deleted, please remove the reference to this article in the MWA disambiguation page. --Blanchardb 01:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. No assertion of notability. The purpose of the organization, as stated in the article, is "supporting the welfare of the players." And so we have the possibility that the article's sole purpose is self-promotion and the recreation of the article ~~repeatedly~~ 9once only recreated once. This suggests that the creator will simply recreate the article out of ignorance of our policies or out of disdain for them. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all four walls. NN, no possibility of proving notablity. SkierRMH 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, absolutely non-notable. Doctorfluffy 06:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Placed tag requesting speedy deletion on article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is not a POV fork but a split off per WP:SUMMARY. --Polaron | Talk 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Judaism (North America)[edit]

This spin-off/fork article is part of an effort to redo Reform Judaism, a core Judaism article from which most current content was copied. Another one is German Reform movement (Judaism). The creators, Egfrank (and Jheald), have been involved in discussing a POV dispute: should Wikipedia use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology? Ongoing discussions are at WP:JUDAISM and Progressive Judaism, where concerns with POV forks and spin-offs are being discussed. This page appears to be an attempt to resolve this POV dispute without reaching consensus. Besides wanting to avoid a possible POV fork, the pro-"Progressive" creators seem to be implementing a switch from Reform Judaism as the main article to Progressive Judaism. Since the switch isn't being implemented explicitly, these spin-offs (or POV forks?) may be seen as an end-run around consensus-building over a major branch of Judaism. Meanwhile, these moves are creating articles with overlapping topics and content. HG | Talk 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not a POV fork. It is a spin-out, to allow "summary style" at Reform Judaism. This is desirable, because:

Reform Judaism is long. Even after the material moved, it is still 26k. And there's material that should be added.
Reform Judaism is diverse. At the moment it aims to cover Reform Judaism in North America; Reform Judaism in the United Kingdom; Reform Judaism as a wider movement - eg including Progressive Judaism in Israel, Current Progressive/Liberal Judaism in France, Holland, Germany, ... etc; and the historical roots of Reform in 19th Century Germany. Given such a diversity, that is not the article to try to include everything there is to include about Reform in North America.
Reform Judaism is congested. Summary style should allow the Reform Judaism article a much more flexible structure, much closer to the ideal "triangle" shape of an article; and a more integrated one, allowing broad similarities and differences to be treated together; rather than the previous structure of basically writing three of four independent articles one after the next, with basically no overview and communication between the different sections at all.
There's enough to say about Reform Judaism (North America) to justify an article -- and there's a lot more that could and probably should go in. Also, there's a lot of material specific to Reform in N. America -- eg specifics about its history, about its policy platforms, about its arrangements for kids' summer camps, that are much better treated by letting it have its own article. Jheald 00:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like Reform Judaism (Germany); Reform Judaism (United Kingdom); and Liberal Judaism (United Kingdom) and keep on adding informative material. These are all good moves, valid historically, and should be the basis for a long-overdue upgrade of articles and information relating to these modern movements that broke with Orthodox Judaism. IZAK 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 02:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with other articles in this series, those who disagree with splitting up the Reform Judaism article into subarticles by region as distinct from using other criteria have valid arguments and may well be right, but nonetheless a regional approach meets WP:N and WP:V, there's no well-established consensus, and hence I see no policy issue that would justify the intervention of deletion per WP:AfD as the means of resolving the underlying edit dispute. I would encourage using other dispute resolution means to resolve it. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK and we should all seek family counseling per Shirahadasha. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald; it's a valid article split. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obvious keep. The article set could use a decent navigational template, as well. Tomer ^talk 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I made a mistake. I agree that the article, title and content meet WP criteria. My concern is with (1) parallel articles for Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism covering the same ground for a single article, and (2) how I perceived the spin-offs as created to tilt the table toward a specific choice between the two parallel articles. However, an AfD was the wrong way for addressing either the two parent articles or my concerns over how/why the spin-offs were implemented. I'm sorry. Instead of focusing on the spin-offs, a decision is needed about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article. Given that I erred here and do not want to create further ill will, perhaps somebody else would be willing to move us toward resolution about a merge? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HG: Your latter concerns "about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article" is part of what has been under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels so let's continue it over there, but there is no way that that issue can get resolved in this vote here. Thanks for your efforts, IZAK 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Comment I think that Reform, Progressive, Liberal clearly need divisions and it is not POV fork, but I wish there were a greater number of knowledgeable people working on the Progressive Judaisms to talk through the merits of divisions based on geography, ideology, chronology, or even Rabbinical seminaries. There is not enough clarity about names of entries or even links to important progressive rabbis and schools.--Jayrav 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Brocas[edit]

Not notable enough. jj137 (Talk) 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete at this stage as it's unsourced - however, since this was AfD'd 2 minutes after it was created, with the author clearly still working on it, change to keep if sources are added. — iridescent 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if adequately sourced. This article is only 30 minutes old and certainly not a CSD candidate. --Blanchardb 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on a gut feeling I see no notability here, but if the article develops, contact me and I'll support a keep. --Kevin Murray 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, only claim to notability is a couple books that aren't published yet. Edward321 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, author's books haven't even come out yet, it's interesting that there are so many people who have reviewed it. I have removed all of the reviews, which are clearly copyvios, and the book cover, which is a fair use violation. I can't figure out what O Books is, their website doesn't explain if they're self-publishers or not, and there are too many false Google hits. Corvus cornix 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find significant media coverage. Book not yet released. Saw no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No find significant media coverage. Epbr123 15:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ghits are not a reliable indicia for notability of ancient figures, and the fact that substantial information exists regarding this person some 2000 years after he lived is in itself evidence of notability. I recognize that the early closing of this nomination may be controversial, and any editor may revert the closing if the nominating party so requests, but I do not believe that a 5-day debate concerning the proposed deletion of this particular article is necessary. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Pedius (deaf painter)[edit]

Possibly not notable enough. Registered only 161 Ghits. jj137 (Talk) 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first named deaf person in recorded history? Seems notable. I suppose if you're nominating an article for deletion 60 seconds after it was created, you don't have time to check. Crazysuit 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Davis[edit]

A young political activist who has made some appearances on television, and claims to have broken what looks like a non-story about Hillary Clinton's thesis. I do not see a claim to notability. Plus I've speedily deleted it twice for non-notability and another admin has done it once, and it keeps getting recreated. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some apperances on television happens to be over 2 years and 100 episodes of work which is documented on mtv.com and on IMDB.com. I do not see the problem in letting him have a Wikipedia, since many who have done less work than him are allowed to be saved and kept. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbedaftjammy (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is presently unsourced, I feel that there is likely to be sufficient infomation on the topic to warrant inclusion at WP. We are not looking for important, just notable. The article is poor, but that is not the criterion for deletion. Research and improve. --Kevin Murray 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. No assertion of importance. There's a good reason why this has been speedily deleted 3 times before. Crazysuit 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of importance? As such as any other actor or actress on here that has done something SO important. I personally did not know there was a certain rule of 'importance' that I had to go by. And may I ask what these good reasons are? Or was that just being stated without knowledge. I am working and updating this page now, so may I please have a moment before you continue to consider deletion.-Dontbedaftjammy 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, there is a minor assertion of importance as he appeared on some TV show. Still speedy delete it though. Crazysuit 06:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt vanity piece by a single user account Ohconfucius 04:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt given history. No attribution of notability to independent sources. I'm rather impressed by his use of the almost-unknown interlibrary loan method of investigative journalism. (In other words, passing a publicly available document to a reporter does not make you notable.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and WP:SALT as above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independant coverage. Epbr123 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I would like to point out that if you are asking for deletion if you would please give a reason why you would want it deleted. I find it to be extremely unfair for someone to just say deleted if they have no information to back it up. Secondly, I would like to ask, if there is proof of his appearences on television why continue the delete? After admittedly being wrong. There is lack of coverage at the moment because I am in the middle of editing, and I believe I have a fair chance to get more facts and links if you would not constantly delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbedaftjammy (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I think this article could use some work, he does seem to have more notability than others whose only claim to fame is a brief stint on MTV (yet still manage to have Wikipedia articles). The man apparently has some verifiable celebrity, even a bit beyond MTV. I am not sure what motivates those who so adamantly want this article be deleted, when they must surely know that far weaker claims to notability are allowed to stay. Snarky comments made about the man speak more about this process than the intended target, and I hope calmer heads will prevail. Jacksinterweb 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete- simply a non-notable one-time joke. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Flea[edit]

Article tagged for OR, notability, and sources since April 2007. Article on a clever idea, but it seems to be only the topic of a video clip presented at a design conference. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN joke video with very temporary topicality. It's already on the iPod wiki, which is really where it belongs. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien Pinardon[edit]

Created by single-purpose account, tagged for notability since March 2007. Person from Paris who's been in many bands and links to many myspace pages. Asserting non-notable and vanispam, as well as failing WP:RS and WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two articles only linking to each other... --Blanchardb 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a possibility of notability if someone does some research. Contact me if any credible sourcers are found. --Kevin Murray 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a mess. No notability asserted. digitalemotion 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not enough reliable independant coverage. Epbr123 16:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flooze[edit]

A funk-dance-lounge-electro project which released their CD on CDBaby. Created by single-purpose account. A speedy was requested and cencelled by one person in April 2007, who then tagged the article for notability. Smells like spam to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two articles only linking to each other... --Blanchardb 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy 06:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: no assertion of notability, no reliable cites. Bearian'sBooties 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pigman^what?/trail 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why[edit]

Small article on a weekly 5-minute science podcast from Australia. Podcast itself seems to have stopped earlier this year. Article tagged for notability since April 2007. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No attempt to address the notability issue. --Blanchardb 10:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was (Non-admin close) No Consensus, too many articles listed at once. Woodym555 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Ofori-Twumasi[edit]

Subject fails notability criteria laid down for sportspersons as laid down at WP:BIO, and also fails new criteria being discussed at WP:FOOTY. PeeJay 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

PeeJay 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. PeeJay 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wasn't aware that any conclusions have been reached on the football project discussion. Anyway, presuming we're simply using the criteria on WP:BIO - glancing through a couple of these, it seems you're nominating youth players who have yet to play a first-team game, yes? Then Jordan Parkes definetely shouldn't be on this list, as he's played a couple of professional games for Watford. Albiet they were league cup games, but Curtis Osano got kept. HornetMike 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I was mainly going on numbers in infoboxes for appearance totals. I should have read Parkes' article more closely. And yes, I am nominating players from the England youth team squad lists who have yet to play a first team game. With regards to the guidelines being discussed at WP:FOOTY, I know they're not set in stone yet, but if the discussion is kept going, they should be finalised soon enough. - PeeJay 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - too many nominations, you are trying to 'catch-all', and that's not going to work in this instance - they require separate assessments for deletion as I can't see how they are exactly "related" in the way you're thinking. Split them and I'll contribute. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've picked one of these players at random, Frank Fielding and he's played 7 league games on loan at Wycombe. I don't know if any of the rest have played but I think this AfD may be a little too over-zealous. Peanut4 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike Jordan Parkes, though, the Frank Fielding article makes no mention of the fact that he actually made appearances for Wycombe. I have removed the AfD from Fielding and Parkes now. - PeeJay 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure several of these articles should be binned, someone should go through and strike out the ones who have actually played league games and amend the player articles to state the fact, then we can discuss the others. King of the North East (T/C) 00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to clarify my opinion. The only AfD bundling which applies here is the last one (quote): "An article about any topic and other articles with the same content but with different titles." Each of the above articles has content which is unique to itself, you cannot call it "the same". Then it follows that (quote): "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't." Please reconsider your nomination(s). I would suggest that the proper way to deal with this is to strike this AfD and start afresh. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. When I began this nomination, I simply grouped them together because their only claim to notability was that they had played for/been called up to an England youth team. I guess I should have read the bundling guidelines better (looks like my reading skills are taking a battering today :D ) - PeeJay 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we all do similar things. Selective article "executions" are fine - just trying to prevent any mass-murders! :-) Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed. I would hate to be accused of Wiki-genocide! Just imagine, years from now, people could be saying "PeeJay: Wikipedia's Hitler!" :-P - PeeJay 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of the others, most aren't even on soccerbase. But Michael Woods (footballer) has played two FA Cup games (as sub) for Chelsea, and Jamie Annerson has played on FL Trophy game on loan for Rotherham. I'm not sure the latter one counts for WP:N, though I reckon the former does. Peanut4 00:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Withdrawn AfD for Woods, but I stand by the Annerson AfD, despite the fact that he may make an appearance in a proper competition within the next few weeks. - PeeJay 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I agree with AfD for Annerson. He's been there for more than a month - since September - and hasn't played any other game yet. Peanut4 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. Wow a lot of work has gone into Krystian Pearce even though he hasn't even played a club game yet. The article already has 23 references. Peanut4 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re Jordan Spence - Captain of the England U-17s, over 30 England youth team appearances, regular West Ham reserve player and one often watched by West Ham senior management and coaches from other sides. I have seen him and , believe me , he has all the makings of a very good footballer. Only signed pro forms last summer and has 1st team squad number. Delete this now and it is sure to be put back before long!--Egghead06 08:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You haven't read the discussion properly if you think any consensus, let alone this one, has been met. This is an ill-considered and over-zealous nomination, and should be closed, with (some of) the players nominated individually. ArtVandelay13 09:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Re Krystian Pearce. This player has played every game for England U-17s at the World Cup, been fast-tracked into the Under-19 team and played in their every game since, received a squad number at his Premier League club and sat on the bench for that club. All these matters are included in the article and fully referenced. He has been individually profiled by his club, the local press, and the FA, and received significant mention in national press and at the FIFA website. All these are referenced in the article. The significant coverage in "multiple, independent sources" he has since received clearly now satisfies the WP:BIO#Basic criteria of notability, and as such the article should be kept, regardless of his not having played a competitive game for his club.

If you want go through footballer stubs selecting subjects with no reasonable assertion of notability, then there are plenty of them about, but please bear in mind that just because playing a fully-pro league game makes a player notable, that does not imply that not having played a fully-pro league game automatically makes him non-notable. Struway2 10:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I think it's too easy to add AfD because a player doesn't satisfy the obvious notability criteria. Peanut4 10:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - like most of the previous comments, I agree that this AfD should be abandoned in view of the great disparity in the subjects. They should come up for AfD individually. As for the two Southampton youngsters, Joseph Mills and Oliver Lancashire, at present they are nowhere near the first team (although Lancashire does have a squad number) so should probably be deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo 10:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - however, if this AfD is to be abandoned, we cannot decide here. Consensus will become very difficult to decipher, as all sorts of points are flying about regarding many of the "victims" of this bundling nightmare. As I said in my first comment, split everything down into sensible parameters, and I will offer opinions. I refuse to offer any in this AfD as it stands. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair enough. I've taken all of your comments on board, and I now propose that this AfD be speedily closed. - PeeJay 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of oakland respond to emergencies[edit]

This is a non notable city program. Also this article is lack of sources. Chris! _ct 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, purely local program of local interest, without any wider significance. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. jj137 (Talk) 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; of microscopic interest outside of the area in question. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Prodego ^talk 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowrun timeline[edit]

The article provides no real world content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the role playing game from which it is derived. Gavin Collins 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redlink/bluelink ratio alone is enough to warrant such a decision. A short synopsis could be added to the article Shadowrun. Shadowrun fans, if you are reading this, please give my suggestion some consideration... --Blanchardb 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consists only of plot recap with no sources for real world context. Jay32183 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable campaign setting and roleplaying game, and within that context a chronology is appropriate... however, it's not necessarily appropriate for the main article, so sectioning it off to its own page is entirely reasonable. -Harmil 05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Merely a collection of events with no real-world context or significance. Doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it has no significance, then why does virtually every review and preview of Shadowrun (2007 video game) complain that it takes place outside of this timeline? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] The timeline aggregates events depicted in the Shadowrun universe over the course of over a hundred sourcebooks and novels. Sure, articles could be created about each book and the portions of the timeline that are pertinent to that particular book should constrained to just that book, but this article is vastly simpler to create and easier to maintain. EvilCouch 23:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't the actual issue. The article is only plot and is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shadowrun is one of the more famous SciFi RPG settings, and having a good timeline of it's history is a useful resource. While it could be shortened to some brief synopsis, much of the usefulness of the timeline would be lost. Notability of the overall setting is pretty high in the RP world, and the game revolves around a lot of precise events from the universes past. Drakino 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EvilCouch's links show significant coverage in independant sources. Edward321 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvilCouch's reasoningShemeska 14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Plot WP:WAF and WP:N. Ridernyc 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now passes WP:N because of secondary sources referenced[7]. Now passes WP:Plot because of developmental history of the timeline.[8] It could certainly use needs more work, expanding of the development and needs refs. I'll be able to include some once I get home and have access to my books. EvilCouch 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not pass WP:N, those sources don't have significant coverage. The development section is completely unsourced. Providing sources and adding a tag for expansion would be acceptable, but adding unsourced content to claim the article isn't entirely plot is not. Jay32183 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - adding two sentences to an article of this size is far from presenting real world context. It's a plot summary, one giant plot summary. Nothing is going to change that. Ridernyc 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow you cut and pasted a section from the main shadow run article. Wow. Ridernyc 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added significantly more than two sentences and nothing was copied and pasted. Feel free to continue to violate WP:CIV if you wish, though. EvilCouch 11:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not one of those sources provides significant coverage of real world context for the Shadowrun timeline. No matter how much work you do, that won't change. Fixing this article isn't a matter of Wikipedians putting in effort. We have to wait for outside relaible sources to publish information and we have no indication that it will happen. Jay32183 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is, in fact, a substantial amount of literature on Shadowrun. Yes, lots of it is within FASA/Shadowrun itself and thus arguably is too much a primary source, but the sheer number of books they put out implies that some people are paying attention. Arguing that Shadowrun books don't count about Shadowrun is akin to complaining that all the sources in an article on WWII are about WWII. As noted at the somewhat similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline, I think that unified articles like this are probably considerably more notable than the somewhat pulpy novels associated with such settings, and serve as a useful appendix to the general plot thrust of the setting. That said, redlinks to fictional corporations and the like that will surely never merit articles should probably be removed. SnowFire 04:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has denied that Shadowrun is notable. There aren't sources on the Shadowrun timeline other than plot. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 19:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator put this same article up on 1 October 2007 (see above for the first nomination link) which resulted in a keep. This borders on a non-good faith nomination.--Donovan Ravenhull 15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Empire[edit]

Tagged for notability since April 2007. Art collective started in Los Angeles by Ken Christianson. Author of article is Ken Christianson. Thus WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:OR, no original sources, vanispam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking at the edit history, the only attempt at showing notability (after tagged) was quickly dismissed and deleted. --Blanchardb 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no secondary source to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG.--Gavin Collins 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom, Gavin. Edward321 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are only two secondary sources that can be considered independent and reliable in the article, I would consider this as sufficient for passing the general notability guidelines. It would be silly to go into the degree of notability, i.e. are two sources enough to establish notability, or do we need three? Besides notability is not the main criterion for having an article but rather verfiability, neutrality, and no original research. This article passes all those requirements. I'm not an admin so feel free to undo this if this is way off base. --Polaron | Talk 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Clem[edit]

A well referenced article, however referenced only from the website of the subject. We need third-party verification for information, we can't just take everything from the guy's blog. bogdan 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Hangon I don't agree that it is well referenced. It is everything but. This seems to be a good article, but has no third party references that I can see. A topic's website should only be used for filler info, not the prime source. This is in essence an autobiography. However, I have found that subject such as Mitch probably have knowledge of good verifiable sources which we can use to support much of the article and also demonstrate notability. I've written to Mitch asking for his assistance. After perusing Google, I feel that there will be sufficient material to support notability if we put in the hard work. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve After writing the above, I received some guidance from Mitch on some independent 3rd party sources, which I have added to the article. Of course the inline notes still point to his sitwe, but that is casuse for a rewrite, not deletion. Besides inline notes are not required and could just be removed. There are more sources, but I need time to research. For now this meets the requirements of Notability and BIO. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huge amount of self-referencial sources. The only source of any note, from PC World is a list, which could be considered a directory, directory listing are not considered as basic for articles. - Francis Tyers · 22:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis that's not true! Yes the notes are essentially self-referencial; however, there are two links under "REFERENCES" which are independent and verifiable, which clearly meets the criteria for both BIO and Notability. Since in-line notes are not required at WP, poor notes are not a reason for deletion. Please look closer at the discussion above; this article is not properly formatted, but that is not a reason for deletion -- it is a reason for improvement. --Kevin Murray 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition is not about the formatting, which is actually pretty good. The problem is with the lack of reliable sources. There are two links that aren't do Clem that I can see, but both are blogs / other web-comics. Such sources are not reliable as secondary sources. One quote from WP:RS: "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." - Francis Tyers · 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to Minnesota Public Radio] which certainly takes a major stride toward satisfying the notability criteria, which suggest but do not require multiple independent sources. The other item in the reference section appears a bit bloggish, but clearly independent of the subject. I think that we can try to fail this on perceived technicalities or look to assuming good faith. I'm not involved in this article with the exception of improving the references after finding it a AfD yesterday. I have however, been very involved in the drafting the current versions of both WP:N and BIO; I feel this meets the spirit of each. --Kevin Murray 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of sources The credibility of the sources used at this article have been questioned and too much emphasis seems to be put on the inline notes which are exclusively to the subject's website. To avoid confusion, I've temporarily disabled the footnotes so that evaluators can focus on the independent references which were being obscured by the volume of notes. Let's look at those references critically and individually:

Minnesota Public Radio (online), is clearly independent and credible. This is also a robust article where Clem is the central focus. What more could we ask? --Kevin Murray 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PC World Magazine is certainly recognized as independent and credible. This article does not give us much information; however, being recognized by PC magazine in their list of 100 favorite bloggers (along with paragraph of description), tends to support the assumption that this subject is widely recognized and thus notable per our standards. --Kevin Murray 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comixtalk.com, appears to have various aspects including a regularly scheduled set of published issues by a "staff" where we could likely assume some editorial review exists. There is also a blog aspect; however the reference for the Clem article is part of a dated volume of the online magazine and not from the blog side. I see no conflict of interest issues and expect independence from the subject, Mitch Clem. --Kevin Murray 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Washigton Post.com Certainly we respect the Post as a source. However, this is a reprint of the PC World article. While it is not a separate source, this demostrates an even wider distribution and thus recognition of Clem. Greater notability? --Kevin Murray 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MSN.com Another respected journal; however, as with the Post (above) this is a reprint of the PC World article, but as with the Post this demonstrates a wider notability of the subjects mentioned within. --Kevin Murray 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The PCWorld, Washington Post and MSN.com all reprint the same article, which is in fact just a list of 100 blogs, each being described in just a line. Are you arguing that it's a non-trivial review? Also, comixtalk is a blog.

Mitch Clem writes several Web comics about punk music, living in Texas, and kittens. His LiveJournal also showcases the flyers he draws for music shows.

bogdan 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your picking on one weak source, the others qualify him with out this. Seems like a Red Herring argument. --Kevin Murray 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found that three of your sources are trivial and one is a blog. That's four bad sources out of five. bogdan 09:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One list, twice reprinted makes it still one list. Inclusion in a list is not sufficient for WP:WEB requirements and is trivial. — Francis Tyers · 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Minn Pub Radio coverage indicates notability the rest is icing. Comixtalk has aspects of a journal in the area where he was interviewed. --Kevin Murray 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One good source is not enough to prove notability.bogdan 09:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this quote from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." There is no requirement for multiple sources if one source is substantial. You should also consider the cummulative effect of what you calll "bad" sources -- I would call them weak. --Kevin Murray 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kevin Murray's argument. Clem clearly has enough coverage in independent sources to meet notability guidelines. Thatcrazycommie 08:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was asked for an opinion--I havent the least idea of what web comics might be notable, but on the general criteria this might just be over the bar. DGG (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just enough independent sources. Epbr123 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are independent sources here. I'm not a webcomic fan, but it looked OK to me. I don't see a problem. futurebird 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a biography. If we want to write about the guy's blog, there might be just barely enough to do that, but there's not near enough to write about him. The source list is long, but there's only one independent source in it, Minnesota Public Radio. Everything else (including Comixtalk, sine it's an interview) is sourced to the person's own work, and the article is full of filler (do we really need several primary-sourced paragraphs about the guy's reading interests?). The PCWorld piece is a one-paragraph blurb so really doesn't matter for anything, sourcing must be substantial. It is also about his blog, not him. There might be enough here in a few years for an article, this guy's star does seem to be rising, but rather than looking into that ball we should delete for now and reevaluate once more independent sourcing exists later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People are confusing notability with verifiability. The MPR story confers notability, the links to the cartoonists website are for verifying facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our verifiability policy is quite clear: articles should not be based primarily on self-published information, like the article currently does. bogdan 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Minnesota Public Radio article is good, though only one. The Washington Post/PCWorld/MSN list is very short, but the fact it's been reprinted by so many highly reliable sources says something. And as to Seraphimblade's point, there are other sources for his biography than his own sites, he's been interviewed by quite a few places:

Between all of those, that's sufficient coverage. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Minnesota Public Radio link looks like proof of notability. I don't think the PC World link is a succesful proof of notability, and I don't know if comixtalk is a reliable source, but that's why I go with a "weak". Corvus cornix 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comixtalk was fomerly Comixpedia, a site which has been used as source material for scholars other than ourselves.[9] that would suggest to me it is a reliable source. Hiding Talk 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. By your definition, Urban Dictionary is a reliable source, since it was quoted by scholars [10]. bogdan 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To my eye we're comparing apples and oranges, looking at the uses made of urban dictionary as a source. But maybe you're right. We're better off using our definitions at WP:RS, which boil down to using sites with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Now we have to determine how one gets such a reputation. My opinion has it that one way of demonstrating such a reputation is being used as a source. Yours may differ. Just because we differ, does not mean we have to spout nonsense. You speak as if opinions are facts and only one can be declared sensical, or logically correct. Hiding Talk 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's an interesting borderline case, and I'm glad that Kevin brought it to my attention. While looking into this I found this thread on comixtalk.com, in which a comix blogger comments on Wikipedia and points out that "In the last month, over 50 webcomics' articles have been deleted, all for failure to assert notability." And there is an awareness that we may at times be failing to take into account some modern topics which do not have the traditional "reliable sources". During a recent overhauul of WP:BIO I used the phrase "Widespread and sustained coverage on the internet, resulting in demonstrable wide name recognition on several significant internet forums and blogs" in order to cover topics such as webcomics which may have a significant following, and which may well have within that topic one or two subjects which are notable within the community, but which may not get coverage outside the community. Within, say, the Concrete poetry field, someone like Bob Cobbing is highly notable - but, because of his anti-establishment stance, got very little coverage in "reliable sources". Maggie O'Sullivan is regarded in certain circles as the most important female UK poet to have emerged in the late 20th century - but wouldn't get as many reliable sources as Pam Ayres, a female comedy versifier of little importance whose fame will fade. I know I'm making judgments here, but my point is that we have to be aware of the "quiet corners" of human experience and look to how we can enable notability within these darker, less well known places. The phrase I used was replaced with "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources." Unfortunately internet forums and blogs are not counted as reliable sources for rational reasons - there is little or no editorial control. However, I'd like for us to listen to what people on comixtalk are saying about webcomics, and allow them to inform our decisions. So if there are multiple references of notability on comixtalk about a webcomic then we seriously take that into account. If that same webcomic is then mentioned on numerous forums and blogs, we can say that the webcomic is notable within that "quiet corner" and that notability should be acknowledged and discussed on Wikipedia. However - I have gone off on a slight tangent. This Mitch Clem article has an acknowledged and solid "reliable source", supported by several minor sources. Enough for notability - but what for? The webcomic, or the author? Well, Nothing Nice To Say is on Wiki. And I think we are getting to the point where with the sources available both here and on the webcomic article that nobody is going to seriously doubt the notability of the "world's FIRST online punk comic" - after all, there's also a proper book which mentions the comic. Notability doesn't transfer, so that the guy is the author of a notable comic doesn't necessarily give him the notability for his own standalone article. He has to earn that himself. Has he done anything notable other than Nothing Nice To Say? It doesn't appear so. In the words of the man himself when asked why anyone would know who he is, he replied: "Most likely because I do an online comic strip called Nothing Nice to Say. Some people might know who I am because of a zine I used to do called "Summer's Over", though it's very, very doubtful that that's the case." I'm not !voting on this, but I think people might see the direction in which I'm going. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk, you say "Notability doesn't transfer, so that the guy is the author of a notable comic doesn't necessarily give him the notability for his own standalone article. He has to earn that himself." I'm not sure that I agree completely and universally. He has "earned" the recognition for the comic strip, his intelectual efforts. I think that we need to look at this on a case by case basis. If we have enough information to distinguish him from the strip, then information which is not relevant to the article on the strip becomes relevant to the articlae ont he writer. However, without resolution to the side issue below, do we have enough info on Mithc himself. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a questionable area when you say that he has "earned" notability from his comic. How did his comic acquire notability? The notability may have come about for reasons other than the guy's ability. When he has done another notable comic, then we can say that it is likely there is something about this author which appeals to people. At the moment all we can say for certain is that the comic strip appeals. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles M. Schulz (Peanuts) ? Subjective areas? --Kevin Murray 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think there are too much self-published sources. But the person is notable, and should let it develops. Chris! _ct 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would agree that it is borderline, but there are at least 2 truly reliable, non-trivial sources, (the Public Radio one and the Muse Magazine one). The blogs are rather sketchy with regard to reliability as they lack ediorial control, but given that there are already reliable sources cited, these add a small further nudge in the right direction. This article may be resting on the baseline of notability, but it does clear it by that much. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean-up. The Muse magazine and Minnesota Free Radio links pretty much clinch it and the other coverage helps. What I'd like to see are less links to his own site (dozens in the footnotes and 5 in the external links) and more use of the interviews and coverage to help source statements. (Emperor 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. I think NPR is sufficient for notability; the other stuff further supports it. -Ich (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it looks like Muse Magazine was a print publication at one point; I think the interview there is WP:RSable, and with NPR, I think that's enough. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kevin Murray asked me to weigh in, and I think his analysis is extensive and basically correct. We have one substantial source, and several corroborating witnesses to Notability. The main point of the Notability guideline is to make sure WP is not the primary witness to notability, and there is sufficient coverage to cover that base. A marginal case of Notability, yes, but based on how far the pendulum has swung against Web comics, I think we should be more lenient when we do have a decent case. Dhaluza 00:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue - self published sources[edit]

There has been a question raised here regarding the correct use of self published autobiographical materials used in this article. Please see WP:SELFPUB an excerpt from that guideline below. I have mixed feeling on how much of an article should be self refeenced, but I don't at this point see a prohibition. IS there another controlling policy page? --Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

At the time of the original nomination, this article failed the last line-item, and it remains questionable what percentage of the "facts" are supported by the independent sources, but what does primarily mean? 90%? 51%? Clearly we have differing opinions among our evaluators. --Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh.

This is really something to be discussed at the article talk page, not at the AfD. The AfD will close in a few days, but this discussion will presumably need to be referenced, edited, modified, replied to for much of the lifespan of the article.
This is also not a deletion reason. At worst, it would lead to cutting chunks out of the article, while the AfD is really supposed to be about deleting the whole thing completely.
You've got four fairly long interviews by non self-published sources now, so the point is likely moot. I don't doubt over half of the article can be sourced to them. If by chance you can't, ask again, but give it the old college try first. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I half agree, but I think that this issue is realted to policy, not just this article. I'm thinking that we should discuss at PUMP/Policy. --Kevin Murray 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Gutierrez[edit]

One-paragraph article on an American model of Filipino descent from the Valley, California. Only external link is her "official website" - but the article doesn't seem to have been written by an SPA at all. Article asserts she has posed both nude and naked on various websites.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. So she posed naked... so did thousands of others... --Blanchardb 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb. jj137 (Talk) 22:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps speedy? Non-notable, no independent sources, and poorly written. "She attends carshows in California where she regularly attends car shows..."?? TGreenburgPR 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - TGreenburgPR, maybe it means she's single-minded of purpose. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy 06:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant sources found. Epbr123 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chieftan Mews[edit]

Unsourced article on the alias of a fellow associated with a Radiohead DVD. No notability outside of this DVD. Can be merged to The Most Gigantic Lying Mouth of All Time, except there is pretty much no content to merge. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doctorfluffy. jj137 (Talk) 22:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as suggested. Prodego ^talk 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsmen of Annuvin[edit]

Non-notable fictional group. Article is entirely plot summary of the group with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Huntsmen of Annuvin' -wikipedia" on Google returns mainly non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I was going to suggest merge to the novel's article The Chronicles of Prydain, but this seems to have been a fork of content. I don't know if Lloyd Alexander is a great enough author to have so much content written about him, though. Remain neutral for now, as I know large merges don't go over well here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books are wonderful and quite well-known, so informative and scholarly articles on them have a place on Wikipedia, but the plot summary content can go. SolidPlaid 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am the author of the article, and it was among the first articles I wrote. I am disappointed that it has been nominated as such, since I used an outside source, quoted the material, and tried to give it greater context. However, since I have become more familiar with WP policies, I am not sure it deserves an article all to itself. I would like to write an article on "Minor characters in the series" or some such thing, and merge the information here. Cbradshaw 03:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I can feel for you; your main article is very long and detailed, so I can see why you would want to fork out a large number of sub-articles. Maybe a better thing to do is merge as much as possible into the main article, wherever it can be part of a "Plot Summary" or "Analysis" section. There's nothing wrong with a very long main article, I think, and if the characters have importance to the plot, they should earn a mention in the main article anyway. But if you create one subarticle for "Minor Characters in the series", it may still end up at AfD unless there has been third-party works specifically addressing those minor characters. That's unfair to the amount of work you've done, but given where policy is today, it's they way it is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - As an example, the sense I get is, referencing LotR (cos at least I've read that), Wikipedia can have a stand-alone article on Sauron, or Tom Bombadil, or maybe even Merry and Pippin, as they've specifically been written about in third-party real-world sources; but an article on Arioch from the Michael Moorcock novels may not be warranted without any third-party sources (which I doubt there are, for Arioch anyway). I don't know where Lloyd Alexander falls within that continuum. Anyway, that's just one opinion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Cbradshaw. Edward321 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per author. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by yours truly. Mike (Kicking222) 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Produktionz[edit]

Article asserts they're a small production company comprising 2 fifth-graders, and one of the most popular groups on LiveVideo. I'll assert they're non-notable and the article has no sources, and see where the discussion goes from there. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No reasonable assertion of notability. --70.81.23.96 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable web group STORMTRACKER 94 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A1 (no context), maybe CSD A3 (no content), and CSD A7 (no assertion of importance/significance). L337 kybldmstr 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland. -Splash - tk 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare King[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Article is almost entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Nightmare King' 'Little Nemo' -wikipedia" on Google returns only trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shazama Deleta JuJube 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland, there's not enough content to merit a seperate article. Edward321 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You misspelled "separate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as this stub has no real world content, primary or secondary sources and is comprised of plot summary.--Gavin Collins 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stubs by their very nature lack content and sources. Are you saying all stubs should be deleted? Edward321 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FICT to Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland, the parent article this is a fork of. Character doesn't have independent notability to warrent its own article. —Quasirandom 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability, blatant ad. Neil ☎ 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fuzion Studios[edit]

Tagged for sources, notability and adspam since Mar/Apr 2007. Page for a visual arts & design studio. Violates WP:OR and WP:V as no sources are given except... wait, they don't even give their own webpage. Page was created by an account which has edited no other articles on Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, blatant advertising. Martijn Hoekstra 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I don't see a G11 (there is no "how to reach us" section), but certainly an A7. --Blanchardb 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kings of Quendor. Merge from the history if desired. -Splash - tk 18:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entharion the Wise[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Article is entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Entharion the Wise' -wikipedia" on Google returns 140 hits, mainly from non-reliable fansites and forums. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Kings of Quendor, which could easily contain more information about those kings, like Entharion, that there's more to say about than just a name. Pinball22 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pinball22. Edward321 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sober arguements for keeping this plot summmary. Firstly this article is written from a heavy in universe perspective which is devoid of real-world context or analysis. Secondly, there are no primary sources to verify the content is not original research. Lastly, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that this fictional character has any real-world notability.--Gavin Collins 10:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the nom voted for keep and strike through the deletion rationale.--JForget 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLUMP[edit]

~~Very short article and non-encyclopedic content UserDoe 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete, the article is OR and does not cite sources. STORMTRACKER 94 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change of opinion - whilst the article has been expanded, I'm not convinced by the subject's notability; a Google search for "GLUMP LLU -eircom" (i.e. search terms that don't include references to eircom) returns just 8 hits. Oli Filth^(talk) 03:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--> Well Duh! only Ireland uses GLUMP and eircom is the Monopoly encumbent. Comreg & eircom came up with it. I'm amazed -eircom finds any GLUMP reference. Hence the value of explaining it. Wattyirl 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, breaks WP:NOR. Doctorfluffy 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites one of the only two possible sources. This article contains no research.

Please do not delete. A reference to GLUMP is needed to understand developments in LLU in Ireland, Magnet DSL and eircom. Any suggestions or improvements would be a better path user:Wattyirl

Keep and fix. Bearian 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, hopefully per WP:HEY. Bearian 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand This article has been fixed since i nominated it. The given reason "Very short article and non-encyclopedic content" does not apply anymore. Right now it might be a stub, but it can be expanded. It does not meet Wikipedia's Deletion policy any longer. I hereby take the nomination back. Regards UserDoe 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand/source properly. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, page is covered elsewhere, any content is not covered there can be added. Prodego ^talk 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human intelligence controversies[edit]

Delete - This article was a work of original research consisting of examples of "controversies" in the opinion of its creator. All of the material came from other articles and it was synthesized in a novel way. I think it should be deleted and the content should remain in the articles on the topics. I can't find any "meta-sources" that give an overview of intelligence controversies, so I don't think we can justify this grouping when it adds little new information. Nothing is lost by removing this article.futurebird 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The controversial nature of the material is self-evident to any person of reasonable intelligence. --Jagz 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, be civil, Jagz. futurebird 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The controversial nature of the material is self-evident. --Jagz 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So? For that reason we need this article? ~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why is a "Race and intelligence" article needed? --Jagz 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, it was a rhetorical question. I should have emphasized that. I do not feel the need to comment on why other stuff exists...when we are here to discuss the merits of this article. Which I see none. That's all. Over and out. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Futurebird (WP:SYNTH), plus it is by and large a POV fork of the work being done at the Race and Intelligence article.--Ramdrake 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're dead wrong about the article being a POV fork of the Race and Intelligence article. "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." When I moved some information from the R&I article there was no disagreement about that content that I was aware of. --Jagz 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, no: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. I say it meets this definition dead on.--Ramdrake 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do say "deliberately created to avoid" NPOV guidlines? I've about had enough of your pompous attitude --Jagz 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I" don't say that, the definition of a POV fork as per WP:POVFORK says that. The fact that you picked only the most fringe theories out of the R&I article, without their rebuttal, and moved them not once but twice to a different article seems to prove this is pretty deliberate.--Ramdrake 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As is stated on the Talk page of the Race and intelligence article on November 1, "I moved the section "Evolution of intelligence" to the article "Evolution of human intelligence"." I moved the whole section to another article. I moved it because I thought it was a better fit in the other article. That move was not a POV fork. After I did that, you persisted in continually reverting the "Evolution of human intelligence" article to the way it was before I put anything in it. You didn't try to resolve your differences through editing the article or putting in contrasting POV. Apparently, you thought the material was too controversial for the article. I agree that the material is controversial too so I created an article about human intelligence controversies. However, the R&I article gang came over to that article too with torches and pitchforks. Which article do you think that the material belongs in? How about in a controversies section of the Human evolution article? Isn't the R&I article being downsized? --Jagz 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*comment 1 - this AfD nom is incomplete, but I'm too dumb to know how to fix it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral - I like the idea of collection into one page, but admit this article is a synthesis. Would the creation of a "controversies about intelligence" category be a good idea to create? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you may be looking for this: Category:Race_and_intelligence_controversy--Ramdrake 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "sex and intelligence" article isn't in that one.... futurebird 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to a category futurebird 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, I don't object to a category either; I object to this WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK. ~~BTW, anybody knows how to fix the nomination on today's AfD nomination page? Looks like I'm too dumb to be able to do it either.~~--Ramdrake 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I managed to do it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Redirect This does seem to be redundant to other topics and should be merged and redirected. Probably to Race and Intelligence --Kevin Murray 00:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I believe the article is being reviewed for deletion prematurely in that it is only one day old. It had the potential to become a good article given some time and could have included information not already in Wikipedia. Some of the intelligence controversy information currently in Wikipedia is not covered in separate articles but within articles not specifically about controversies. The main objection about this article appears to be the section "Evolutionary". Since I moved the information in that section from the "Race and intelligence" article without consensus, it should be put back in that article until a consensus is reached among the editors about what to do with it. That would be a fair thing to do. --Jagz 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious pov-fork. Alun 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say it is a POV fork? --Jagz 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alun and Futurebird -- obvious biased pov-fork. In the lead there is some disclaimer stating the article is fringe and "outside mainstream science", but then goes on to appear it is neither. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is every sentence supposed to be followed by a disclaimer? --Jagz 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - intelligence is a very active area of research within psychology/neuroscience, and the controversies are quite real. This article does a horrible job of discussing them, but it should be done properly. There is (if one looks) plenty of back-and-forth within the field starting with definitions of intelligence going right though how to measure it, and whether we're measuring what we think we are. I suggest working this article towards a state where it can be a main article linked from Iq_test#Criticism, Intelligence#Controversies, Cognition etc. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the overlap between this topic and "race and intelligence, so that this becomes a viable stand-alone topic? --Kevin Murray 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as contemporary issues like the black-white issue in the USA, I'd say yes. It should probably at least be mentioned with a link the R&I article. What article should be used to discuss the race related theories regarding the evolution of human intelligence? I'm an advocate of free speech. --Jagz 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Scientific racism, specifically this section: [11] which seems to already discuss the issue.--Ramdrake 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some theories state that people who are essentially geographically separated for very long periods of time may not have the same average IQ. How do you determine which of those theories are racism and which ones are not? --Jagz 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another (regardless of the type of superiority). So, again technically speaking, all these theories are racist. And yes, a belief that Black athletes are as a whole better runners and jumpers is also racist according to this definition, just so we're being clear on the concepts used.--Ramdrake 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word racism has more than one meaning. To be more specific though, how do you determine which of those theories are "scientific racism". I can't find the term "scientific racism" in the dictionary and it seems to have a negative connotation. --Jagz 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're more likely to find scientific racism in an encyclopaedia, such as here. You can't quote the article back to WP, but it should give you an idea of the different applications of the locution.--Ramdrake 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you personally determine which of those theories are "scientific racism" --Jagz 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he just explained how... futurebird 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he did. --Jagz 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like he wants to persecute people who believe there are differences between races. The fact that there are different races tends to support the belief that there are in fact differences. --Jagz 05:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained myself: according to what I said earlier, all of these theories (except the one about sex and intelligence, which is sexism) are racist. I'm not trying to persecute anyone. The undeniable fact is that races exist, but they are constructed socially from empirically observed differences, and they are of little if any significance to biology.--Ramdrake 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term racism has a very negative connotation here in the USA and calling racial theories made in good faith racism is derogatory. Maybe up in French Canada they use the term differently. --Jagz 13:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the term is just as damning up here too. However, if you prefer to use the term "racialist theories" instead, I don't object. However, it still remains scientific racism (the belief that science proves one race is superior to another in some characteristics).--Ramdrake 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for comment on the Talk page of the "Human evolution" article as to what article the controversial theories regarding the evolution of human intelligence belong. Please let the editors of that article comment without interfering. Also, here is a discussion of both sides of the debate over whether race exists.[12] --Jagz 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As shown in the linked article I provided above, the subject of the existence of race is controversial even among anthropologists. Therefore, Wikipedians should not try to impose their personal views on others. The subject of the adaptation to harsh climates such as those brought on by Ice Ages and frigid winters, and its evolutionary effects has not been discredited. I suggest that a "Racial theories" section be added to the article "Evolution of human intelligence" and that the "Evolutionary" section in this article be deleted. Also, the "National income" section in this article can be deleted. This article should be kept but restructured per Mike.lifeguard's comments above. --Jagz 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth a separate article. Besides, they didn't even mention phrenology. :) Bombycil 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, and expand whatever Creature type gets renamed to. Prodego ^talk 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plant (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

This article has no content, real world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional vegetable material outside the game settings it is derived from. Gavin Collins 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and oh dear god. Otto4711 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listing of non-notable fictional elements. Doctorfluffy 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There's a misunderstanding, here. This is about a "creature type" in 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons. It is not about "plants in D&D." It's too narrow, and should be merged to a larger article, perhaps Creature type, which is underdeveloped as it stands. Linkage from the article about changes to the system could help that article by tying it to some concrete examples. -Harmil 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Harmil. BOZ 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to creature type and just add two or three notable examples. No need for a full listing. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not if creature type gets deleted first! haha! BOZ 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and use for the place to merge information about plant-type creatures that don't have significant independent notability, since they're currently all getting nominated for deletion as well. This could be a section of the main article if we had infinitely big articles, but since we don't, I think we should keep it and the other creature types as spun-off subsections. Pinball22 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pinball22, or Merge per Harmil.--Robbstrd 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Plot, no real world context, not of use to anyone not playing D&D. Merging this will just make a larger article that will end up getting deleted. Ridernyc 20:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL.--Givenarmy 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another list masquerading as an article. Even worse, it's not even real. Bombycil 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR list per [[WP:NOR}} and WP:NOT#IINFO. If creature type survives AFD, this should be replaced with a redirect to that page to discourage recreation. Percy Snoodle 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Bell[edit]

Not notable prize in a high school football rivalry. 75 Google hits for a number Erie Bells. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a non-notable trophy for a high school football rivalry. STORMTRACKER 94 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
request for clarification - I can find regional/local references to the bell and the annual game. For the town of Erie, it does seem notable. Where is the line, though, between local notability and Wikipedia-level notability? Does this need nationwide-level coverage of some sort? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not sufficiently notable for its own article. As Dhartung' says, high school article coverage would be sufficient. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a city trophy that goes back and forth. Cover this in the high school articles, but it does not merit an article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. GregorB 09:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Doctorfluffy 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as nonsense with no real content. Neil ☎ 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fireween night[edit]

Not notable neologism (or would it be protolgism?). And nn celebration. 2 Google hits for Wikipedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per "this term will hopefully be recognised". That in itself is an admission of non-recognition and lack of notability, nevermind the fact that google only returns 7 hits, all of which (besides the wiki article in question), are not worthy of referencing this alleged event. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism. Chris! _ct 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable nelogisim, see WP:NEO. STORMTRACKER 94 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Bungle. JuJube 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with Wing Commander (franchise). Prodego ^talk 17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Commander timeline[edit]

This fictional timeline has no reliable primary sources and reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game from which it is derived. Gavin Collins 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that it provides no relevance to the series. Additionally, it provides no information except that from the single source it is derived from. --Sesameball^Talk 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wing Commander. While short and not having much in the way of future reference, there's nothing inherently "bad" about this information, and can probably fit as prose in the main article just fine. SnowFire 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merger proposal. Without primary sources to verify the content of this article, copy and pasting this material elsewhere does not improve it. --Gavin Collins 09:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Wing Commander, and I suspect neither are you. Are you saying that this page is false and/or a hoax? I rather doubt that. The source is obviously the games (and books, if any) themselves as compiled by random people who'd played them, just like the rest of Wikipedia. It's additionally backed by a fansite's version. Any factual statement sourced to the game passes WP:V in flying colors (though obviously commentary would be required to come from secondary sources). SnowFire 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume good faith, without citations such as footnotes, this article does not pass WP:V.--Gavin Collins 14:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we mark the text as unsourced when merged and let editors who know more about the topic find the sources or correct the text... or you could do the research yourself.... -Harmil 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wing Commander (franchise). The timeline definitely aides in putting the various games and novels in a chronological perspective in relation to each other. The timeline is written up in the "Victory Streak", one of the manuals which comes with the Wing Commander III game. That is definitely a primary source, but to source a timeline on the series itself, it is perfectly adequate. There is nothing in WP:V which says that primary sources can never be used. WP:SELFPUB indicates that something sourced by primary sources should not really be in a separate article, and so my vote to merge this, but to say that it fails WP:V is a gross exaggeration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Snowfire. References can be added, and the information can be tagged as unreferenced if necessary too. Just because something should be improved or referenced does not mean it should be deleted. Rray 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think if it hadded some references added (a 10 minute job) then a merge would be better. I don't think it's worth a deletion though as it contains some good data. --businessman332211 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6th Carrier Air Group[edit]

This one-line stub contains the reason for deletion right in it: "... it was never formed." There's nothing to say about it because it never existed. Furthermore, it would seem that the Internet at large agrees that there's nothing to say about it, making it unverifiable. This could never grow beyond a few sentences without vastly duplicating information already present in other articles. - Revolving Bugbear 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's essentially an orphan too, indicating it has no use as a placeholder either. I suppose a merge to Fleet Air Arm is possible but not likely to see much use. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep & Expand I don't agree that this is not significant. The planning and reasoning behind such a plan may be facinating. This is certainly notable if it reached the point of receiving an official designation. Lack of text and lack of research does not by itself demonstrate a non-notable topic. --Kevin Murray 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a designation for one carrier and the support vessels in the Royal Navy. It seems that this is not unique and fairly minor. --Kevin Murray 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zero results in Google Books. Zero results in Google Scholar. Zero results in Google News Archive. So, you first, Kevin. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there is an article on planning for operations extending beyond the actual end of the war (for instance, had the war continued), then this subject might fit well as a merge. I reserve my recommendation until I find such an article. I note, though, that a lack of sources almost certainly guarantees this article's deletion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any notable info can go in Fleet Air Arm Buckshot06 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to Top Cat. However, I do not think the material in this article is worth merging, so I'm just going to redirect and someone can fish out the stuff they like if they want to.-Splash - tk 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choo Choo (Top Cat character)[edit]

As fancruft. No external notability. Martijn Hoekstra 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Merge per BillCJ below--θnce θn this island ^Speak! 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or~~ Merge - As nominated, this is not a genuine issue, and is a frivolous nom. Character articles are very common for TV shows, both aninmated and live-action. This article does need verifiable sources, but I believe such sources exist, and that this can be remedied in due course. Note: This nomination was filed 20 minutes after the articles creation, with no attempts made to comunicate with the article's creator beforehand, as recommended by Deletion Policy, and by the spirit of WP:AGF. Could be merged back to Top Cat, as that article has no character details, or to a new article covering all the characters. - BillCJ 20:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted vote to straight Merge - Merge to main article, and split off chacater section IF it becomes lengthy, and if it has notable content. - BillCJ 20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Top Cat per BillCJ. STORMTRACKER 94 21:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as is normal practice for character stubs in series like this. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge. There's nothing worth merging here. Crazysuit 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BillCJ. Edward321 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT into Top Cat. —Quasirandom 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment. Merging retains the information those people may find useful, and puts it in a place where they are more likely to be able to find it, while retaining a redirect from the current location. It isn't electrons that are being saved - it's just a bit of searching by people looking for information that's being reduced. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied, blatant promotional piece that has been deleted many times. Neil ☎ 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REVOLUTION MOTHER[edit]

A page for this musical group was speedied eight times (as Revolution Mother); I protected it briefly, only to see it pop up here under a different spelling. It has asserted a modicum of notability and I bring it here for a more permanent solution; if it's agreed to delete it, I recommend salting it also due to it having been so persistently recreated, but I take no position here. Accounting4Taste 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add some salt as it is not notable and the fact that it has already been speedied eight times. TonyBallioni 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt per nom. Chris! _ct 21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Eight speedies is far too many. STORMTRACKER 94 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absurd number of speedy deletes. Regardless, fails WP:BAND requirements for notability. Doctorfluffy 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - article does assert notability (they were supposedly on the Vans Warped Tour), but aggressive reposting makes this look like little more than attempted advertising. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block user. JuJube 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FreeNation Foundation[edit]

Delete as non-notable "organization" per WP:N. Sources included in the article are either primary or point to a different organization, The Pirate Bay, which this organization claims an affiliation with, however there seems to be no actual evidence of that.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:49, 10/23/2007

07:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, east.718 at 19:39, 11/4/2007 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and otherwise this thing may never close. Otto4711 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nominator mentioned, none of the provided references actually refer to a "FreeNation Foundation", which is curious indeed. There are also no reliable secondary sources for that name. (Not to be confused with "Free Nation Foundation", which appears to be a think tank.) --Sesameball^Talk 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable foundation. STORMTRACKER 94 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 21:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and some kid of joke. Bearian'sBooties 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. There is no article to merge to. If someone wants to do this, please request the content at WP:DRV. -Splash - tk 18:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iksar[edit]

This is an article about the fictional race from the EverQuest games. While I would perhaps support a general article discussing all the races of Norrath, it appears that the Iksar are the only one of the races to have their own article. The article is unsourced, and I don't think this single race is notable enough for inclusion. Powers ^T 12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the article that contains the rest of the races, wherever it is--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such article. Powers ^T 12:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one should be organized to prevent the creation of a hundred new fictional character/race articles every week. -RiverHockey 14:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Iksar article is over three years old, and as far as I know, none of the other races have articles. It doesn't seem like an urgent need. Powers ^T 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources, and outside of the game guide from which they are derived, this fictional race is not notable. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article on the races of EverQuest. I'm not sure how "game guide" got into this discussion, since this is a race from an MMORPG. Pinball22 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavin Collins. Without reliable secondary sources, it is impossible to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Phoenix-wiki. If there isn't a "universe"-based list, one should be created. This series isn't going away and the races in it are recurring, so I agree with RiverHockey's comment.. --Sesameball^Talk 19:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what if there are no reliable third-party sources from which to create such an article? Powers ^T 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then there's somewhere else this can be merged that can satisfy everyone who insists on wanting third-party sources even for content of notable fiction. For example, there isn't a page regarding the series universe (only individual games) even though it is quite notable. Regardless of what is eventually decided, other content of similar design will clearly be meant to go there. --Sesameball^Talk 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. STORMTRACKER 94 21:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources on this article. It also lacks real world notability, so creating more race articles would only go against those ideals. If more race articles were to be created, readers who do not play EverQuest will have little to no interest in this article, giving little reason to create them nor keep this one. IAmSasori 02:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your argument. Even if it's true that non-players would have no interest in the article, readers who do play EverQuest would have an interest. Are you specifically excluding EverQuest-players from Wikipedia's audience? Powers ^T 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe the article is too important to just delete. I think a merge would be a good idea. --businessman332211 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 15:39, 11/5/2007

Interion[edit]

Subject lacks real world notability, does not meet WP:V, WP:N and probably can't be sourced with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT Pilotbob 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as probably notable, but needs cites. Bearian'sBooties 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Farscape. - --Brewcrewer 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has neither primary nor secondary sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Brewcrewer. STORMTRACKER 94 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Subjects are actually too disparate for a useful category to be created out of them - making the list even more redundant. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban planning publications[edit]

Wikpedia is not a directory. Contested PROD. Corvus cornix 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize is probably the best option here. --Polaron | Talk 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. STORMTRACKER 94 21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Doctorfluffy 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize per Polaron. --Blanchardb 22:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 10:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1949-1950 United States network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

I have no doubt that this article was created in good faith, but NOT#A collection of indiscriminate information comes to mind... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. It's historical data, valuable for research into the early days of American broadcast television. See also Category:Television schedules. Otto4711 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. Broadcast schedules are part of television reference books and are encylcopedic. Mandsford 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might not be an indiscriminate collection of information. But I don't see the encyclopedic-ness or the usefulness of this article. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. Chris! _ct 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that someone studying the history of broadcast television would be looking for exactly this information? Do you really believe that someone trying to figure out what's on TV tonight is going to be looking for articles about th 1949 television season? Otto4711 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as un-encyclopedic. STORMTRACKER 94 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is a not a tv guide. Doctorfluffy 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on, folks, this is not "TV Guide", unless you have a way of tuning in signals from 1949. There have been numerous encyclopedic reference books about television broadcasting. Maybe you're as tired as I am of seeing individual articles about Smallville episodes and Friends characters and similar dreck, but this is not the same thing. Even persons who profess never to "watch TV" must acknowledge that television has been a major part of the cultural and economic history of the United States, as radio was in the decades before it. Mandsford 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this is a great concept and good archival information. I'd like to see the topic expanded to cover other years, but am wondering why it does not include the evening? --Kevin Murray 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the category linked in my comment above. Otto4711 01:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am delighted to concur with some of the people here in establishing that at least some comprehensive lists are not indiscriminate.DGG (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am quite surprise to hear that editors think this list is a good source of information. First, nobody would want to look at some old tv guide and find it useful. Even if someone really find it useful, the sources given in the article may not be reliable. Also for tv guide that happens many years ago might not be accurate and verifiable. Chris! _ct 02:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article useful just from the time that I spent looking at it in considering the AFD. I had no idea that any television network ever carried UN General Assembly sessions! Think how someone researching the antecedents of C-SPAN would benefit from being able to look at that article. And why you would think that TV Guide can't serve as a reliable source is a mystery. TV Guide as far as I can tell qualifies under WP:RS and just based on articles I can remember reading in TV Guide I can think of a number of Wikipedia articles that would benefit from them as sources. Assuming that you're right about the sourcing, "poorly sourced" does not mean that there aren't other more reliable sources. There has been nothing offered here that remotely justifies deletion. Otto4711 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is in no way an indiscriminate list or a TV guide since the programs are no longer available for tuning in. It is in fact an important part of cultural history. It satisfies WP:N and WP:V on the basis of substantial coverage in numerous reliable sources, such as the New York Times historical archives, Time magazine and other newspapers and books on TV history. It is clearly of encyclopedic notability, and it can be expanded and improved via the numerous sources available. Edison 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical television schedules certainly have notability. This is not "the TV Guide", which would show the broadcasts for every specific day, this is the seasonal schedule, which relates to the shows that followed or preceded each other and the shows that competed with each other. As synergy and competition are integral to programming decisions this is obviously not just random or happenstance. These are discriminate lists and most of them are sourced to some degree. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorfluffy. Bobby1011 07:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an entire category created few less than a year ago, I'm interested to broadcasting history, both italian (and sardinian) and the rest of the world. I saw this category incomplete and I wanted in the spare time to add other years; with nick Bellame I did create weekday seasons 1968/1969, 1948/1949 and, last, 1947/1948. It's strange, in my opinion, that now you want delete an article leaving its own category. --Olbia merda 09:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely not an indiscriminate list, or a TV guide, unless you're a time traveller, and the regular programming schedules for network television are very significant for understanding what U.S. culture was like in a time period. Pinball22 18:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a WikiAlmanac this can be transwikied to? 132.205.99.122 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the first of the five pillars, Wikipedia incorporates "elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Wikipedia is the WikiAlmanac. DHowell 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy specifically allows for "historically significant programme lists and schedules" and there is no doubt that the U.S. network television schedules each year receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, that they are historically significant, and that there exist currently published sources for this historical information. This is exactly the sort of thing that television historians document: See, e.g. Total Television, The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-Present, and The Encyclopedia of Daytime Television. These types of articles have also been nominated for deletion several times before and the result every time is not to delete: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles. Perhaps it's time we revise policy to make it even clearer that this type of historical information is allowed. (I also think we ought to make citing WP:NOT#IINFO as a reason for deletion without citing one of its specific items a ~~blockable offense~~ criterion for speedy keep, but that would probably never fly). DHowell 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Supes[edit]

Previous AfD for this article in 2005 resulted in "keep". This is a 1-paragraph article on a superhero-group comic book, of which as far as I can tell only one issue was ever produced. Most ghits only seem to be small comic book sales websites and review websites. Author was argued to be notable in previous AfD, though notability is not inherited. I'll argue that this article fails WP:N and see how it goes from there.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JONATHAN ^{Go green!} 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep considering the past AfD was closed as a keep, and because the creator is extremely notable; however I would like to see some third party sources for this article. TonyBallioni 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to creator's article and mention in an "other works include..." sentence. The notability of the creator does not impart independent notability onto all of his creations. Otto4711 22:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I do not think it can be rescued. Bearian'sBooties 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect I flagged the notability in June and nothing has been done. I looked into it and it was one issue published in 1999 [13][14] and now available online.[15] It doesn't seem to have made any impact that I'm aware of and there is not much to say about it so I don't think there is any point in a merge (although I might recommend turning this into a redirect to his page) and just add those 3 links as footnotes by the name which should provide everyone as much information as they'll need. (Emperor 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarias (band)[edit]

Local band from Boston MA. One-sentence stub article tagged for notability since June 2007, unlikely to meet notability guidelines. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, most likely self-promotion or a fan made page. -RiverHockey 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable band. STORMTRACKER 94 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. jj137 (Talk) 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. It sounds like some deeper thought is required regarding a set of interrelated articles here, after which a deletion debate may be more usefully held if it is still wanted. -Splash - tk 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Reform movement (Judaism)[edit]

This article is the beginning of a POV fork from Reform Judaism, from which all current content was copied. Furthermore, the copy was made without carrying over the edit histories. The editor has been involved in discussing whether WP should use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology. While well-intentioned, this page is disruptive and the involved parties should proceed with discussion and ordinary channels (e.g., merge, move or AfD) to advance their side of the dispute. HG | Talk 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This article may qualify as a Speedy Deletion. Since I am involved in the dispute, I did not feel qualified to nominate this for Speedy Deletion (e.g., Forking and copyvio). HG | Talk 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a POV fork. This is a spin-out article, to allow summary style at Reform Judaism. Jheald 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that: the Reform Judaism article is considerably over-length, so summary style is recommended. It also represents basically a botch together of material in 3 very different areas: the C19 German movement; U.S. Reform Judaism today; and U.K. Reform Judaism, which has different historical roots, and a significantly different outlook. So summary style makes a lot of sense. It also lets the Reform Judaism article move much more quickly to where things are at today, as WP articles on religious movements should do, rather than many many screens of history first. Jheald 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Insufficient secondary sources cited. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the tag says, it's Under Construction. Note that so far this is the content extracted from the existing article, not new material. Jheald 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle - what exactly do you consider Original Research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He means he wants to see more citations. And he's quite right. But it takes time. Jheald 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a huge section (now marked) that does have either synthesis or OR - its a hodgepodge mix of material from multiple regions and historical periods. Really needs to be taken out so as not to confuse the issue. Egfrank 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence. To show that the creator was not doing a neutral content spin-off, besides checking their involvement in the POV dispute discussions, consider that the first line of the article, moved from "Reform Judaism", now reads: "The roots of the progressive movement lie in the increasing secularization of Europe...." (emphasis added). The creator is intending to settle the Progressive vs Reform debate by creating this article. Thank you. As evidence of the creator's involvement in the dispute discussion, see where Jheald started this section during the dispute: Should Reform or Progressive be the main umbrella article. In addition, the creator was aware of the caution I gave in a warning entitled: Avoiding a POV fork. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the tag says, the article's Under Construction. That sentence was merely copy/pasted as more or less appropriate intro text from existing article Progressive Judaism. It's just placeholder stuff. If you want to improve it, go right ahead. But you don't call an AFD because you want to change one word. Jheald 19:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now edited this line. No particular point re the use of the word "Progressive" or "Reform" had been meant. Jheald 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:
1. The Pre-1883 German Reform movement has influenced multiple streams of Judaism. All these articles need to point to the same history without duplication - it is only logical to place this material in a separate article to which all articles may link
  - reform/liberal/progressive Judaism.
  - Conservative Judaism
  - Reconstructionist Judaism
  - Reform Judaism - currently documents US Reform, UK Reform, and Israeli progressive Judaism
  - Liberal Judaism - currently documents UK Liberal Judaism
  - German Progressive Judaism - planned article
2. Reform Judaism is currently longer than the length recommended by WP:LENGTH
3. German reform history is long (and needs to get much longer). Placing such a large history section at the front of this article obscures the fact that US Reform and UK Reform and Israeli Progressive are living movements with a modern history and philosophy.
4. Placing German reform history in Reform Judaism is obscuring the fact that the US Reform history is severely lacking and making it hard to add material to the US history of Reform.
5. Placing the pre-1883 German Reform movement into a Reform Judaism article is cramping it. There is a *lot* of missing material about disputes, convocations, steps forward and back. Hirsch is just one of many dissenting voices that need to be included in the story.
Egfrank 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we should apply WP:AGF here and not assume the article was created specifically for a POVFORK. The Reform/Progressive movement in Judaism began in Germany in the 19th century and so far as standard Wikipedia notability criteria are concerned, 19th Century German Reform movement is by itself easily a notable enough topic to merit a stand-alone article as part of a series of articles on Reform/Progressive Judaism. I would imagine that as the encyclopedia grows various subsections of the Reform Judaism article would inevitably grow large enough to be split off into their own articles. I'm not sure it's the role of the AfD process to supply input on whether or not now is the right time for article splitting, which is a natural Wikipedia process. If there were a strong WP:CONSENSUS one way or the other that would be a factor but I don't believe this is a case of an isolated editor violating a clear consensus. I would give the article a few days for construction to settle down and then see what the situation is. If it is indeed a blatant WP:POVFORK (for example, if it appears to be an essay style or all previous points of view but one have been removed) we can deal with it then, and if it should be merged back in for other reasons we can deal with that as well. I would suggest dispute resolution to help the editors involved resolve their differences on how best to proceed. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Reform Judaism (United States) article has also been created. There have been a number of recent disputes, including whether to use the terminology "Reform Judaism" or "Progressive Judaism". My general impression is that the new article topics satisfy notability and verifiability criteria, so there is no inherent policy problem with dividing the articles up this way, although there are certainly good arguments for a different approach. Once again, I believe that WP:AfD may not be the best place to resolve these differences. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. You may be right. However, we now are faced with two parallel overview articles on this branch of Judaism -- Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism -- both set up with parallel summary style linking to this (German Reform movement) and the Reform Judaism (North America). If I'm not mistaken, Progressive Judaism wouldn't function as a competing main article without such spin-off/fork articles -- because otherwise it would have to link to Reform Judaism as the main article for the movement. HG | Talk 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your concern, why don't you slap {{merge}} tags on Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism? It really hasn't got anything to do with sub-articles. Jheald 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a well-known historic movement in its own right, and an appropriate way of dealing with a complex subject. DGG (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Reform Judaism (Germany) to match Reform Judaism (North America); Reform Judaism (United Kingdom); and Liberal Judaism (United Kingdom) and keep on adding informative material. These are all good moves, valid historically, and should be the basis for a long-overdue upgrade of articles and information relating to these modern movements that broke with Orthodox Judaism. IZAK 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork. The concerns about the historic roots of Reform Judaism in Germany should be covered properly under a History of Reform Judaism. As titled, this would be an article about the current state of Reform Judaism in Germany, touchign on the recovery of the population after the Holocaust and such. ThuranX 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This !vote by ThuranX appears to have been made after IZAK moved the article to Reform Judaism (Germany). The article has now been moved back to German Reform movement (Judaism). In line with ThuranX's !vote, a new stub Progressive Judaism (Germany) now exists for the current state of Progressive/Liberal/Reform Judaism in Germany. Jheald 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It actually exists to prevent content forks. We have multiple articles that need to link to it.
I really like the idea of a History of... article, sounds good, but even in that case, this material would still need to be in a separate article and connected as a sub/main:
- Reform/liberal/progressive judaism has a 200+ year history spanning 42 countries. That is a lot of history to cram into a single article.
- Even with 2/3 still in outline form the article is 9K+
- There are numerous books and articles devoted solely to the 70 year period covered by this article so there should be no shortage of reliable academic material to expand and source this article.
Egfrank 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and IZAK. I'm not sure if I agree with IZAK about renaming the article, though, because the other articles describe contemporary movements and I think this article is about a 19th century movement. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I made a mistake and I’m sorry. I agree that the article meets key WP criteria; the title and content are acceptable. My concern is with (1) parallel articles for Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism covering the same ground for a single article. As Egfrank says, “Reform/liberal/progressive judaism has a 200+ year history spanning 42 countries. That is a lot of history to cram into a single article.” (2) How I perceived the spin-offs as created to tilt the table toward a specific choice between the two parallel articles. However, an AfD was the wrong way for addressing either the two parent articles or my concerns over how/why the spin-offs were implemented. I was wrong and I’ll try not to do it again. Instead of focusing on the spin-offs, Jheald is right – if I’m interpreting the comment above correctly – that a decision is needed about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article. Given that I erred here and do not want to create further ill will, perhaps somebody else would be willing to slap on that merge tag? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HG: Your latter concerns "about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article" is part of what has been under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels so let's continue it over there, but there is no way that that issue can get resolved in this vote here. Thanks for your efforts, IZAK 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Comment I think that Reform, Progressive, Liberal clearly need divisions and it is not POV fork, but I wish there were a greater number of knowledgeable people working on the Progressive Judaisms to talk through the merits of divisions based on geography, ideology, chronology, or even Rabbinical seminaries. There is not enough clarity about names of entries or even links to important progressive rabbis and schools.--Jayrav 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about basketball[edit]

An indiscriminate list of information just waiting to happen... "Songs that may remind a listener of basketball"? Don't see how this could possibly ever be encyclopaedic — iridescent 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC points 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. jj137 (Talk) 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author appears new to the world of Wikipedia, so I'll emphasize to you VSimon, don't take the comments as a criticism of you personally. There are policies about lists (WP:LIST); the one about "indiscriminate information" refers to the fact that putting up a list of things that have something in common is not the basis for an article. "Original research", shortened to OR, means that articles can't be made up solely of things that you're aware of. Finally, lists of "songs about _______" are not encouraged as encyclopedia articles. Don't let this experience deter you from creating other articles. This one won't fly. Mandsford 20:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a trivial list that does not belong here. STORMTRACKER 94 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and concur with Mandsford's encouragement to the author. JJL 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article meets criteria for speedy deletion, no assertion of notability.. Mercury 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cowsay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is not notable, and no current assertion. I would have speedy'ed it, and if there is an overwhelming suggestion to do so, I still will. However, it was on VFD 2 years ago, so I'll send it here. Mercury 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. This is a minor ASCII art producing programme which can never do anything more. Nowadays we use copy and paste anyway, and ASCII art is so 1980s. Sam Blacketer 18:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:Common sense. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exmonius[edit]

Speedy delete. Non-notable bio. -- Dfait 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ghits show no Roman Philosopher by this name. SkierRMH 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH; nominator please use a relevant {{db}} template to request speedy deletions and not AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem isn't non-notability so much as it is non-existence. If this person really was an ancient Roman philosopher, he probably would be notable enough to warrant an article. And this article was created two years ago, so speedily deleting it seemed inappropriate to me. But with no evidence available of Exmonius's existence, his article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH. STORMTRACKER 94 21:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. TGreenburgPR 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nonexistence. Hal peridol 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Most likely doesn't exist. Doctorfluffy 06:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VA - Virtual Architecture[edit]

Non-notable software product. -- RHaworth 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dfait 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles does not fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The company fails to show on the first two pages of a Google search for "va architecture."-- Mumia-w-18 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to establish that the article subject is notable. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software. STORMTRACKER 94 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in North Dakota, 2010[edit]

Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now. Dfait 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL & no specific coverage on the election as of this time. SkierRMH 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and someone please nominate the 2012 one as well... Stifle (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing in the article but "will likely" or "would likely." • Gene93k 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as severe violation of WP:CRYSTAL; pull out and nuke 'em from space--it's the only way to be sure. JJL 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Re-creation should occur when there is something to put in it, particularly from reliable sources. --AliceJMarkham 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Arizona, 2010[edit]

Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now. Dfait 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL & Gnews hits show no specific coverage on this election as of this time. SkierRMH 18:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Re-creation should occur when there is something to put in it, particularly from reliable sources. --AliceJMarkham 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netural There is some good in this article, but it does go with WP:CRYSTAL. America69 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Let the closing admin decide where to put my vote![reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Maryland, 2010[edit]

Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now. Dfait 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL & Gnews hits show no specific coverage on this election as of this time. SkierRMH 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was about to say "delete per Dfait", but I changed it to keep because if it's going to be deleted and recreated again, there's not much point deleting it in the first place. jj137 (Talk) 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Re-creation should occur when there is something to put in it, particularly from reliable sources. --AliceJMarkham 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Vermont, 2010[edit]

Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRYSTAL & Gnews hits show no specific coverage on this election as of this time. SkierRMH 18:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure unsourced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no verifiable information per WP:V. • Gene93k 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Re-creation should occur when there is something to put in it, particularly from reliable sources. --AliceJMarkham 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Re-add if it is something that is useful! America69 02:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 wikt:. -Splash - tk 18:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wig out[edit]

Classic dictionary definition. It's even in Category:Etymology as further evidence. Powers ^T 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete from Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Per Stifle. —Scouter Sig 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Stifle. --AliceJMarkham 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild 10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scop[edit]

Dictionary definition. It's even in Category:Etymology. Powers ^T 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. --Blanchardb 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's more than a stub and a dicdef, and beyond that I don't see a convincing reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may be defining a term, but it has a reasonable about of content on history and has some references in there. I can't see any reason why this article should need to be deleted, or even merged into wiktionary for that matter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How is the concept of a "scop" any different than the concept of a "skald"? Aren't they the same thing? And thus should have only a single article between them? Powers ^T 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe skald is a Nordic poet whereas the scop is Anglo-Saxon. I can't give details, but all poets in different cultures will have their individual characteristics. I cannot say in detail what the distinction is, but the differences are present. However, a number of different poetic classes have their own articles bard, minstrel and so on. I don't see any reason to call Anglo-Saxon poets by a Norse name. Buirechain 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But only the second paragraph addresses that distinction. The rest of the article is nothing but etymology and definition. Powers ^T 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's not clear whether this should be kept outright or merged to a rather vague somewhere. Evidently not being deleted at the present time, though. -Splash - tk 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon (toponym)[edit]

Due credit for a creative article title, but note on the talk page that other considered titles included "Etymology of the word Oregon". Etymologies, of course, belong in Wiktionary. Powers ^T 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Oregon. --Blanchardb 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already sufficient discussion in the Oregon article. This is OR. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oregon #Name of the state Delete Interesting, but not interesting enough to be an article all its own. Better that the existing paragraph in Oregon be kept under control through the editing process, than to open the door to long articles about place names. Mandsford 18:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is more than a simple etymology. It can use some expansion and more thorough citation, but those are things that can be accomplished. Deleting the article will not help that happen. If it simply gets merged back into Oregon, WP:UNDUE will prevent it from getting expanded to thoroughly cover the topic. This is not original research, not by a long shot, I have read enough Oregon history books/articles to say with confidence. It looks like people have been sloppy about including citations; that is something that can be rectified. -Pete 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oregon per Mandsford. Should not be its own article. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stifle, I don't understand. What does "Summary Style" have that applies in this situation? I see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles as the relevant guideline; by my reading, it describes what's happened here as "completely normal Wikipedia procedure." There is a more detailed story to tell about the name of Oregon than would be appropriate on the Oregon page. Just because the article has not yet reached full maturity, is not a reason to merge back; merging back interrupts the development of a quality article. -Pete 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response We agree that the article is interesting, and it's not original research, but it shouldn't stand on its own as a matter of policy. There are many interesting stories behind the names of important places, but having companion articles about the etymology of a name -- geographical, personal, etc --- is another matter entirely. If the article Oregon is getting to big to hold this, you might want to do a spinout called History of Oregon and make this part of it. Mandsford 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere else (Oregon, History of Oregon, etc.) or transwiki to Wiktionary. Occasionally articles of a primary etymological nature are interesting and useful (see "fuck" for one such example), but most lack sufficient encyclopedic content to stand on their own. --EngineerScotty 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Mandsford, you make a good point, I hadn't thought of "History" as a home for this, but it makes perfect sense. But, there we butt up against a different problem: that article will take some time to write, and it seem to be the Wikiproject's consensus that having a stub for "History of..." is a bad idea. So, it will likely be a while before we have a "History of…" article online. What to do with the "name of…" article in the meantime? What's the harm in leaving it where it is, until there is a "History of…" article to merge it into? -Pete 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Mandsford. Chris! _ct 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Pete... History of Oregon (which currently redirects to the section of the Oregon page) doesn't have to be a stub. The section is substantial (remember, if you copy it to a new page, look over the prior edits to that section). In addition, there's an article called Oregon pioneer history that would be a logical merge into the Oregon history. I'm sure there's probably a list of Governors of Oregon. And of course, this article about the origin of the name, which is an interesting part of Oregon's history. Then you edit out the redirect command. I'm almost inspired to be bold and do this myself, now that I've given the how-to. Suggestion: be bold and create the History of Oregon article with the text of Oregon (toponym) and some of the other articles. Mandsford 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those not part of WikiProject Oregon who don't know the history of our discussions vis-à-vis an article about our state's history, follow the link at Talk:History of Oregon. (There's plenty more discussion in our project's archives somewhere.) I'm not sure what to do about the page under discussion, but just a note to let people know that our active WikiProject is generally well on top of all matters Oregon, so we have a pretty good idea which interconnecting history articles we can choose from should we decide to go ahead and change the history article from a redir. Cheers, Katr67 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.--More discussion about Oregon history at this WP:ORE subproject page and its talk page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/History. Katr67 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mandsford: As Katr points out, the approach to writing History of Oregon is currently under active discussion at Wikiproject Oregon. I don't want to discourage you from being bold, or from joining in the project, but at face value the approach you describe would be over simplistic. It would entirely neglect everything before 1806, and using the list of Governors for everything 1890–present would be a fairly radical POV to advance. Again, at the present state, the stuff about the name of the state would run afoul of WP:UNDUE. If you take the step you describe, I'm sure we all will use it as an excuse and a foundation to build up the article, but please do not fool yourself that the approach you describe, in itself, will result in an article that's adequate. Again, I don't understand the motivation to delete a fairly reasonable article that is informative as-is, and will likely be an important part of another article in the future. I suppose there isn't any huge harm in deleting, as I'm sure several of us have archived the current article, but I don't see what's to be gained, either. -Pete 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete is that, in general, articles on words belong in dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Powers ^T 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LtPowers: Yes, in general, discussion of the derivation of a word belongs in a dictionary. But this is not a general case. This is a case in which numerous theories have been advanced, and where there is also an issue of pronunciation. It's a case in which history books and general-interest articles, not dictionaries and linguistics journals. I have no quarrel with the general principle, but I believe this is a legitimate exception to the rule. -Pete 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing "Merge" vote to "Delete". Speculation about the oregons of a place name can go on endlessly, and I'm persuaded that this one would not be concise. Too big, as is, to merge back into the Oregon article from which it was spun. Mandsford 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is: This article is clearly a valid subject which will be expanded. It was relatively recently (less than five months ago) spun off from the Oregon article as it was inappropriately lengthy as a section as Pete suggests. A dictionary entry to replace it isn't (quite) appropriate since several sources and their interaction with history are probably involved. It seems to be one of the few (only?) states for which the origin of the name is not known. One or more of the possibilities in the article might be correct, but then again, the correct explanation might not be included—yet. Thorough researching of the subject has been attempted several times by authors cited in the article, but unfortunately only summaries of their research are given. There is a great deal more material worthy of being in the article. Deleting and/or merging the article would discourage expansion, and is anti-collaborative. —EncMstr 01:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of capital cities by importance[edit]

This list conflates importance with GDP PPP of the country, and doesn't have any more information (other than names of capitals) than the rightmost table in List of countries by GDP (PPP). ArglebargleIV 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or at the very least, rename to "List of capital cities by GDP" or something similar. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind people editing my article to make it better and clearer but it doesn't need to be deleted. i see it as a quick way of finding out the most important (economically) in each area of the world and the top 25. I feel that it would be useful. I obviously realise that it could be improved, but there is no specific need to delete it. Thank you (Hamilton365 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You say that you are concerned with economic importance but list the political capitals of countries rather than the main economic centres. Many of these cities (Washington DC, Beijing, New Delhi, Rome, Brasilia, Ottawa, Canberra, Ankara, Riyadh, Abuja, Rabat, and arguably Berlin) are not the most economocally important cities even in their own countries. Phil Bridger 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your reference to 'my article'; assuming people have ownership of an article is a common mistake on Wikipedia and the bottom line is, if you don't want your material to be edited then best not to submit it. • nancy • 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article List of countries by GDP (PPP) deals with the subject in a much more comprehensive and neutral way with three different rankings referenced and I cannot find a justification for duplicating so much of the material in a way which adds nothing to understanding or explanation of the subject. • nancy • 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Question to author Hamilton-- what's the difference between your article and List of countries by GDP (PPP) cited by the nominator? And in what way is this article superior to that one? This doesn't appear to be much more than using the name of a nation's capital in place of the name of a nation, such as when we talk about a decision from Washington or Moscow. Washington, Ottawa, and Brasilia aren't considered big industrial towns. Mandsford 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either redundant to List of countries by GDP (PPP) or irredeemably POV. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i don't care. Delete it. I thought it was a good idea, but obviously not. Nancy, i called it 'my' article only because i created it and i said that i DO want it to be edited to make it better. Mandsford, what made you think that i thought this article is superior to the other article??. I just thought it would be useful, so sorry, but you don't have to accuse me of all sorts of things that i haven't done. Ok? so delete it! I will just stick to reading articles instead of creating them, because it's not worth the hassle. I thought i was being helpful, but obviously i was wrong. (Hamilton365 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't mean for it to sound like a personal attack, Hamilton. I apologize that it came off that way. By "superior", I guess I was driving at what set this article apart from one that already exists about countries by GDP. In this case, the problem was a good idea that turned out to be a bit redundant, through no fault of yours. Can't blame you for being p.o.'d. However, you've demonstrated that you've got talent in writing and designing, so don't stay away too long from creating articles. Trust me, we've all had the experience of seeing our work deleted. Save this one to your computer if nothing else. Mandsford 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name of the article sounds POV and seems redundant to articles like List of countries by GDP. Chris! _ct 21:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Chris!" —Scouter Sig 22:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced "by importance"? NPOV/CITE/V, anybody? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defence laboratories school[edit]

Subject of the page is not important enough to warrant a separate page. Its just a school, and not a well-known one either. Additionally, there isn't enough subject matter.. its only 3 lines. Sniperz11^talk|edits 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sniperz11. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's a non-notable school (I don't think the unsourced fact that it's a school for children of goverment employees is enough). TJ Spyke 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Back to the Future. -Splash - tk 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Brown[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Article is almost entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Jules Brown' -wikipedia" on Google returns almost entirely hits about an unrelated author who appears to write travel guides. "'Jules Brown' 'Back to the Future' -wikipedia" on Google returns episode guides with trivial mention and non-reliable fansites and forums. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Back to the Future per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that Meta page is actually logical, while Wikipedia's policies are not.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this character outside of the film. --Gavin Collins 10:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Plot, he is a minor character in the movie add to that the fact that there are no references means it's kind of pointless to merge. Ridernyc 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also kind of pointless to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into History. Prodego ^talk 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History (etymology)[edit]

Etymologies belong in Wiktionary. The article title is a dead giveaway. Powers ^T 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with History. That tidbit should be part of the main article. --Blanchardb 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Dfait 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not relevant to have its own article. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a section in History. Might be instrumental in pushing that B-class article to GA status.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom 132.205.99.122 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with no prejudice against further editorial solutions.Tikiwont 12:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endogenous[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; etymologies belong in Wiktionary (note that the article's only category is Category:Etymology, and that the article title is an adjective, not a noun). Powers ^T 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The level of detail in these pages goes beyond a typical dictionary definition. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endogenous has only eight sentences. That's not much detail. Powers ^T 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Just a stub article, but still more than a dict-def. A quick search on wikipedia turns up several related topics that could be included. — RJH (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJHall. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Endogenous to Endogeneity (current stub paragraph in Endogeneity not worth keeping) and rename Exogenous to Exogeneity, and replace with redirects, in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) - "adjectives be redirected to nouns". Gandalf61 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endogeneity seems to be a neologism unique to Wikipedia. I believe the proper noun form is Endogeny (and thus Exogeny). Powers ^T 12:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm ... I can see the parallels with autonomous/autonomy, but counting Google hits gives endogeneity:830,000, endogeny:12,600, exogeneity:244,000, exogeny:558. That's not a reliable source, but those figures do look rather one-sided. Maybe we need an expert opinion - I'll ask at the Language Ref Desk (mostly out of curiosity). Gandalf61 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if we're talking Google, then it usually links to a definition for recognized words. "Endogeny" is recognized as a valid word but "exogeny," "endogeneity," and "exogeneity" are not. Also, dictionary.com shows the American Heritage dictionary listing with "endogeny" as the noun form of "endogenous". Just for extra-special confusion, though, dictionary.com's own "unabridged" definition shows "endogenicity" as the noun form. No mention of endogeneity anywhere. Powers ^T 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I asked on the Language RD, but only got one response:

"According to the OED, endogeneity is the word for "the fact of being endogenous"; endogeny is a synonym of endogenesis ("the production of structures or bodies within the organism"). Wareh 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)"

So both words are apparently in the OED. I don't have a strong view on which is the more appropriate noun form for an article title. Gandalf61 09:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We also have an article endogenic and exogenic, which seems to be describing the same concept as endogenous and exogenous, although specifically in the context of geology. Gandalf61 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are both significant and notable concepts in biology, regardless of the current state of the articles. No opinion on renaming. Someguy1221 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Agreeing with Someguy with regard to biology. Hordaland 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge Keep per RJHall and merge all the articles into one possibly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthdirt (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combine and rename. I note that if one searches for intrinsic or extrinsic, one is redirected to Intrinsic and extrinsic properties. That makes the title a noun and may be a good way to combine endogenous and exogenous, avoiding all the noun-suggestions starting with endog- - . Hordaland 09:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD:G3. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww[edit]

First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; etymologies belong in Wiktionary. Second, this particular etymology strikes me as dubious to say the least; in any case, it's completely unreferenced. Powers ^T 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G1. Unsourced, and at best dubious. --Blanchardb 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blink ... Blink ... Strongest Possible Delete Ever in the History of Deletes. Seriously. Although I must say, the line between hoax/patent nonsense here is questionable ... - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not patent nonsense, because it's intelligible. Hoax, possibly. Powers ^T 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon looking at the article again, I agree. I don't think this is a speedy candidate. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Dfait 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax, non-sourced, etc., with no prejudice to Dutch eel-trappers intended ;) SkierRMH 18:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No question that this is a hoax, and a good one, since some people aren't sure. The part about "aalfuik" and "Baron Aalfuik" should be a give away. It would be pronounced "AW F***!" Mandsford 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic in the least. -RiverHockey 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta carbon nitride[edit]

A hypothesized chemical compound which might be harder than diamond. It might more likely be spontaneously explosive. The article has been contended to be a hoax; I don't have access to the journals cited as references right now. I have refused a speedy deletion as patent nonsense but brought it here. Sam Blacketer 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The links in the article prove, if nothing else, that there actually is an article called "Synthesis of beta carbon nitride nanosized crystal through mechanochemical reaction" in a 2003 issue of Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter and that "Unique Single-Crystalline Beta Carbon Nitride Nanorods" was printed in the journal Advanced Materials the same year, which indicates that this is not a "hoax". The possibility that the author is making up stories about what beta carbon nitride seems unlikely; of course, maybe those nanorods would turn out to be defective. Given the problem with consumer products made in China, can we be certain about a good quality nanorod from there? Mandsford 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The non-pay source cited checks out, and other secondary sources confirm it. There is some mention of skepticism, but it is definitely not a hoax. • Gene93k 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it really existed and was important, normal newspapers would have picked it up by now. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I read the chemistry and physics section of my local paper every day and I haven't seen it yet. Mandsford 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 28 Google Scholar hits, mostly behind paywalls of course, but the parts quoted by Google confirm enough fact to show that this is not an outright hoax. I'll check the Science article from work tomorrow, and have asked for someone from Wikiproject Physics to check some of the others. It's also had coverage in popular science publications like New Scientist [16] which would seem to imply it's considered notable for a general audience. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it was mentioned in Nature too. This was so simple to prove by Googling that I wonder about the good faith of its tagging as a hoax: Iceglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very new account but has already done a few strange things like trying to semiprotect his own talk page . Gordonofcartoon 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable with coverage listed. Hal peridol 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedeauction[edit]

Contested prod. The article is an essay about a recently invented type of auction, probably taken from promotional material produced by http://www.swedeauction.se (for example see here). The only active use of this type of auction appears to be via swedeauction.se. POV. Unreferenced.andy 15:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending specific reliable sourcing to verify notability and widespread usage. This appears to be a neologism. I've found only 9 google hits, several of which refer to the Wikipedia article. ("Swede auction" gets even fewer). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per moonriddengirl and also as the article reads like a how-to manual • nancy • 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verging on spam, Ghits show no independent coverage of term. SkierRMH 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert/how-to/spam, probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, After the above remarks were written, the author has made important additions to the article and to its talk page. Please read those additions now. Max7437 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As requested & in the interests of arriving at the right decision I have looked at the revised article but neither of my main concerns (WP:NEO and WP:NOT#HOWTO) have been addressed so I stand by my original !vote. nancy 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) While you've added extensive notes, you have not added much sourcing or addressed my concerns. There are now 20 distinct google hits for the term—which is the # of hits google comes up with after removing duplicates. The majority of those refer to this article. Among the rest, there's a blog (here, a search engine of some sort (here) a redlinked article in another language Wiki (here) and a copy of an article on Owe Junsjö (here). That's all I can find. I have combed through page after page of google hits for the term "Swedish Auction" and not found anything using this term to verify that it is not a WP:Neologism. I have found some information about how auctions are conducted in Swedish real estate (see here and here), but neither of them use any specific term for the practice, and certainly not Swedeauction. I also found a .pdf from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (HTML version here) that lists the four types of real estate auctions: "English, Dutch, first and second-price sealed bid auctions". They don't mention Swedeauction or Swedish Auction or anything like, even though its a 2006 report from Sweden discussing auctions in Swedish real estate. That report states that with regards to housing auctions in Sweden, "The auctions are either conventional English ascending-bid auctions or executive auctions". All indications suggest to me that this is not a widespread term. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saryn Hooks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination Article found in the WP:PROD workstream despite (at least) two prior trips to AFD and one DRV action. PROD-nominator states: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. This event is covered. The person need not be. There is relevant info on 79th Scripps National Spelling Bee 2006" User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article fails WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom who states the case more eloquently than I could. • nancy • 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sheesh. —Scouter Sig 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary Ideology[edit]

Jejune OR essay on material that is far better covered at American Revolution and elsewhere. (Perhaps written for a school assignment?) Doesn't fall under any speedy criteria, unless it's a copyvio of something behind the subscription wall at the cited source. Deor 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - OR and Spam. BusterD 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it's probably a school assignment. Nice to have someone explain the American Revolution for us. Mandsford 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR etc. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This same fellow---who seems to be, if a bit muddled, at least sincere---has made a number of edits to other articles related to the American Revolution, all of which are of similar quality, and now have to be reverted. Clearly, he needs a talking to, and some pointers on the proscription against POV and OR. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tensoku ryu[edit]

No effort made to establish Notability. Very few ghits. Who practices it, where?Peter Rehse 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 14:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The few notable aspects of this article actually belong in the Martial arts article. --Blanchardb 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no assertion of notabiliy, and advertorial tone. I wouldn't be surprised if this was copied from a Tensoku ryu website somewhere. Bradford44 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. Not blatant enough for a speedy but after you keep reading... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flow-driven programming[edit]

"Flow-driven programming" as a term doesn't appear to exist outside of its Wikipedia page. May be a synonym of imperative programming or procedural programming. WalterGR 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should probably expand upon my rationale for deletion. Google returns ~50 results for "flow-driven programming," which fall among 3 categories: 1. links to/copies of this article, 2. references to this article, 3. unrelated items (e.g. discussions of "dataflow driven programming".) So this article fails WP:NOT. It has been marked as needing citations since Jan 2007. See also Talk:Flow-driven_programming, where the legitimacy of the article is questioned. WalterGR 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WalterGR. There's even less evidence for this on Google scholar (one dataflow, one something about medical airflow, and one something about concurrent hardware design, all obviously unrelated to the supposed subject of this article). —David Eppstein 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Forrester[edit]

This is a COI page which seems to have incorporated sources that don't even mention the subject to fake notability. Non-notable author, self-written autobio. IvoShandor 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with a COI tag. No third-party edits, but does assert notability. --Blanchardb 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you actually check that notability out, most of those sources do not include his name at all. Not only that, but some of the references are other pages on the Wikipedia! How can you assert notability and have a NPOV when you are writing about yourself, especially using blogs and whatnot for sources. Please check sources before saying he is referencing.--Kranar drogin 16:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He also self promoted himself on WikiProject Illinois, putting down that he was a Feature Article and a Good Article at the same time. He also added a ton of project tags, and put himself down for importance as Mid.--Kranar drogin 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: The sources are all weak, and do little to assert notability for the most part, a quick look
[17], publishers website (publisher seems to be non-notable)
[18], personal website, doesn't meet WP:V, WP:RS
[19], blog which doesn't even mention Forrester.
[20]: Blog, not a reliable source: sourced twice.
[21]: Article which seems to be promoting the book from the Illinois Bar Association, Forrester is a lawyer, and thus a member.
[22]: Has nothing to do with the Forrester
[23]: Wikipedia article, not reliable, nor does it have anything to do with Forrester
[24]: Another personal website, doesn't mention Gary Forrester, once again
[25]: A website about Bluegrass music, has nothing do with and doesn't mention Forrester.
[26]: More stuff about Bluegrass, the music is related to the subject but this source has nothing to do with Forrester.

I don't think I need to go on, the rest of the sources are the same crap. This kind of self-promotion has no place on Wikipedia. If this guy is so notable, then let a non-interested third party create an article with actual real references. IvoShandor 16:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, with a lack of WP:RS and a big dollop of WP:COI. I consider the present article unsalvageable. Take a single sentence: "On 1 January 2007, Houseboating in the Ozarks was named "Best Book of 2006" by film & literary critic John Otto." If one goes to the blog referenced (item 4 in IvoShandor's list above), one finds that the blogger is not a "film & literary critic" but an Illinois lawyer, and one who happens to be personally acquainted with Forrester. Moreover, if one checks the archive, one finds that the blogger merely wrote that he liked Forrester's book best of all those he had personally read in 2006. If Forrester is so bloody notable, let some uninvolved party write an article about him; this one should go in the trash bin. Deor 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all in favour. L337 kybldmstr 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi to IgoShandor, BlanchardB, Kranar drogin, Deor, and L337 kybldmstr. The above comments are considered in the spirit in which they are offered, i.e., to improve the content and reliability of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia standard of keeping comments civil is also noted. In short, the comments above are respected. However, the information below is also submitted for the purpose of achieving consensus.
The support of Blanchardb (above) for a "keep" is appreciated, and I note that Blanchardb is a meticulous commentator on articles for deletion. His comment that the subject matter of the article is "notable" but that some editing is required is noted, and will be acted upon. This is not an NPOV situation, as explained below, and the references fully support the factual statements asserted in the article. Indeed, a fair review of the comments above does not reveal any factual errors in the article, although errors of emphasis are asserted.
It appears that the primary offense in this article was the mistaken extension of it to the Illinois project tag, as per the comments of IgoShandor and Kranar drogin, both of whom are apparently from Illinois. Their comments seem to be well-placed insofar as it was error to suggest that the article was "good" on the Illinois project site, but that was a mistake of over-zealousness, not one of malice, and it has been corrected already. There is no disagreement ongoing, and sincere apologies are extended to IgoShandor and Kranar drogin. This has been a learning experience about the scope of Wikipedia project tags and external links.
Although the bulk of the submissions that prepared the article came via the user name Forrestergaz, the compilation of the article was a group effort derived from people familiar with the widely diverse range of matters mentioned. It was problematic assembling input from Australia, New Zealand, and America, and ensuring consistency and clarity, so a single user site for input proved helpful in this regard.
The article is not a marketing tool or a promotion tool. Nothing is being sold or promoted. It is intended as (a) factual, and (b) somewhat entertaining as well as enlightening.
For the musical references, the achievements mentioned in the article were documented in the Random House book that was published in 1991, with the ISBN number and other reference material cited in the article itself. It was certainly, by objective standards, a notable achievement to sweep the Australian country music gospel awards, and to finish in the national country music competition's final five two years running with two different compositions.
Wikipedia emphasizes that it is international in its scope and depth, and Australian achievements are recognized as as noteworthy as American achievements. See, for example, the Wikipedia article on musician Paul Kelly, who has covered a Forrester song and whose band has shared members with Forrester's. Achievements in New Zealand are also as notable as achievements in other countries.
Finishing second in the international competition sponsored by the International Bluegrass Music Association (Nashville, Tennessee) was also noteworthy under any fair criteria, and this is documented by Random House and other publications.
The three musical albums referenced in the article were produced by excellent record companies, RCA Records and Larrikin (one of Australia's top companies) among them. This is all verifiable and accurate, and referenced in the article.
Some of the references pre-date the internet, so they cannot be referenced on-line, but the references are stated nonetheless because they are accurate and accessible without a great deal of difficulty. Wikipedia articles often include such references.
Also, some references do not refer to Forrester by name, but they refer to either a pseudonym (as mentioned in the article) or to the work done or to the background information of a notable undertaking. Hopefully, those are regarded by Wikipedia as appropriate references, as the obvious purpose is to either (a) cite to references where the subject of the article is discussed, or (b) provide background information in general support of the matters addressed, some of which will not be know to readers not familiar with Australia, New Zealand, Indian reservations, bluegrass, and the like.
The achievements on behalf of Native American tribes are notable in their own right, along with the musical and literary achievements. See, for example, Wikipedia's article on Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse, who worked for Forrester at the Native American Program of Oregon Legal Services. In significant part because of her excellent work on behalf of the Klamath and Grand Ronde tribes, Furse was elected to Congress. Forrester was the director of the Native American program of Oregon Legal Services at the time, and with Furse and tribal leaders drafted legislation and lobbied it through the Congress. Links are cited to the Grand Ronde and Klamath tribes, and while it is true that those links don't expressly cite Forrester, that is not the purpose of the links.
Forrester also co-authored a book on American Indian law in 1991, published by Rothman's, which is accurate and verifiable (with ISBN number given), and it sold well among America's Indian tribes, government offices, law schools, and others.
Regarding literary notability, the first novel mentioned in the article was published in 2006 by Dufour Editions. The criticism of Dufour (above) is not justified. Dufour is a respected and long-standing small publisher, and many of the finest works in American literature have come from small publishers. Dufour is among the most prominent distributors of English and Irish literature in America, and has published a select group of novels and other literature on its own. With respect, the criticism of Dufour is unfounded.
Forrester's second novel was published in significant part by the University of Nebraska Press in 2007, along with contributions from some of the best writers in North America (Dubus, Chabon, etc.)
The Illinois State Bar Association commentary on the first novel was not in the nature of promotion by the Bar, as asserted in the comments above. Forrester is no longer an active member of the Illinois bar, as he now resides in New Zealand, and he could not represent Illinois clients even if he wished to. The ISBA critique was offered as an example of commentary, together with the reviews in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the German magazine, which are accurate and verifiable.
Forrester's poetry has recently been accepted for publication, on a poem by poem basis, in Poetry New Zealand, the University of South Dakota Press, the Earl of Seacliffe Art Workshop in New Zealand, and others. This is verifiable and accurate. His book of New Zealand poems, written in 2007, will be published in 2008, although that fact will require up-dating in the article when the time comes.
This is not a COI situation, as has been asserted above, because the overriding question is whether the information in the article is accurate and verifiable, which it is (and none of the commentators has disputed that salient feature).
Nor is there any copyright issue.
The primary concern of Wikipedia is that an article be accurate and verifiable, and no concerns have been voiced about accuracy or verifiability, nor could there be any such concerns. Hard copies of verification can be provided if necessary to supplement the consensus, as not all supporting materials are available on-line.
Standing on its own, any of the three achievement areas mentioned in the article is notable: the Congressional legislation restoring two Indian tribes to treaty/tribal rights; the musical compositions and awards in Australia; and the literary production of the published first novel, the Nebraska publication of the second novel (excerpt), the poetry, and the book on Indian law. Taken together, the three areas are notable.
The project tags were added simply in the spirit that that is what the projects are for - to consider items that are of interest to particular regions, states, pursuits, etc. If those project tags were listed mistakenly, they should be removed, but the understanding of project tags and external links has been that they are there not to make specific citations to a particular person or work, but to subject matter of common interest. There was no ill-will or intent to mislead with the project tags - simply a misunderstanding of Wikipedia terminology and process. Easily fixed, with appropriate apologies to all concerned, but this does not impact on the notability or quality of the article itself.
In short, it is respectfully submitted that this article passes Wikipedia's notability standard on three separate bases that are joined together in the one article; that the article is not promoting in any way, but rather factual and verifiable; and that any problems with external links or project tags may be easily remedied (if in fact a problem is perceived). Regarding the criticism of John Otto's blog review of the first novel, he has been reviewing films and literature by way of his blog for something like 15 years, and he is barely known to Forrester - Blogs are increasingly recognised as perfectly valid ways of reviewing literature and films and music, and Otto came to the well-researched conclusion that is cited in the article. But that reference to Otto can be removed if need be.
In sum, the comments of the people above who support deletion are welcome, because they are offered in good faith and in support of improving Wikipedia. On the basis of those comments, the article may well be improved. Certainly Wikipedia's standards are respected. But it is submitted that the matters referenced in the article are noteworthy, accurate, and verifiable. In the absence of anything factual to the contrary, the article should be retained with appropriate editing. Thank you. --Forrestergaz 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:COI, WP:AUTO, WP:NOTE, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V. I further suggest that you refrain from continually adding to the same post, instead making different comments, and signing them independently. The lengthy commentary above doesn't override the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, please read them. IvoShandor 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IvoShandor - I am just not very adept in navigating my way around Wikipedia, so I don't really know how to correspond with you through the most effective channel, or even how to effectively provide input regarding an article that is proposed for deletion. I have apologized to you and to Kandar by way of an "edit" on your user sites (for suggesting via the Illinois project that the article was a "good" one), because I didn't know how to apologize otherwise. My email address is [email protected], if you would like to correspond via email, and I will be sure to get back to you. I have taken your advice, and reviewed the several "WP" sites you refer to - thanks for that. I am a little embarrassed at the "self promotion" assertion, because frankly I was reluctant to go down the Wikipedia path at all, but I received a lot of input and encouragement via email, which I assembled over a couple of months from Australia and the USA and posted to the Wikipedia article you are commenting on. I would hate to see all of that hard work go to waste just because I was guilty of over-reaching. I do hope that you believe that the article has merit, but I won't argue the point. Thank you for your comments and advice.--Forrestergaz 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need an apology, I don't care about that stuff, honest mistake. I don't believe the article is workable at all in its current form. The discussion shall play out. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines outlined above as they will help you with any further endeavors. IvoShandor 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for that. I didn't offer the apology because you "needed" it, but only because I thought it was appropriate, and still do. I am certainly going to follow your advice in familiarizing myself with the policies and guidelines you've outlined, which will help considerably in harnessing the energies that many people have brought to this article. Also, I am aware of some other articles that are in the works, unrelated to the one under discussion, so I will be sure that they benefit from your advice at the outset rather than in mid-stream, as I have done. Thanks again. I am sure an agreeable article will be the end result of these exchanges. And don't hesitate to email me on the address given above, should you wish to discuss in more detail. I feel a bit handicapped because I have no way to correspond except by way of these posts, so far as I know. Greetings from New Zealand. --Forrestergaz 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio of a non-notable apparent self-publicist. Article is based on WP:SPS and completely fails WP:RS Ohconfucius 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment Here is a direct quote from Ohconfucius's user site, as chief among his pet peeves: "I have noticed considerable junk from self-promoters, people who self-publish a book or CD, and think they are notable just for those reasons." The article in question, which he votes to delete, is not about a self-publisher or a self-produced CD. The writer's first novel was published by a first-rate publisher in 2006, and excerpts of the second novel were published by a first-rate publisher in 2007, and three record albums produced by RCA and by top Australian recording companies in the 1980s and 1990s, plus published poetry in first-class journals and a published textbook on American Indian Law by Rothman's in 1991, plus references in numerous books and journals including the Random House one and the Bluegrass Unlimited ones times four, all of which are verifiable and the basis of the facts stated in the article. ISBN numbers are provided where possible, and references are made to both on-line and paper sources. If there have been too many inclusions in the references or external links for the purpose of providing background information, those can be deleted, but they are not irrelevant. Arguably, for example, a link to tribes that have been restored due to the legal work of the subject of the article are helpful to any reader wishing to know more about that tribe's history. This article is referenced far more than many that have been kept, and if ego was really at play there could be a lot more references, but the article was a composite effort that was channeled through numerous sources (even if a single user site was the vehicle for posting, because of the problems of distance between NZ and Australia and America) with reader interest in mind rather than pumping up the reference list with all sorts of things.--Forrestergaz 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Gaz, you may have read some of my Userpage. But you missed the bit which says "I have found it a ploy by a minority of users who use information here on my userpage against me personally in deletion debates. I reckon that most experienced editors quickly see through it. So please, don't go there." Ohconfucius 06:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've changed the "Keep" in Forrestergaz's preceding message to "Comment," since this user has already registiered a keep opinion above. Deor 12:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note - I have deleted the reference in the text to the John Otto blog, in light of the comments. I agree that the blog is not the best reference, after reading Wikipedia's standards more carefully. However, some of the comments above lump together "references" and "external links" as sources. They are not both sources. A reference is a source, and a source may be cited in both the reference section and in the text. An external link is not a "source," so it is appropriate to leave certain links in when they connect up to the article in question. The comments about an external link failing to make a specific reference to the author are not well-grounded. They misunderstand the nature of "external links." If the consensus is that the external links to this article need to be scaled down, no problem, but they were intended to be reader-friendly.--222.155.139.47 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a quick reply to Ohconfucius and Deor (above). Ohconfucius, I don't believe anything I've said anywhere on Wikipedia, in comments or in article submissions or in talk or anywhere at all, could be characterized as an "attack" on anybody. My only point was the obvious one, that the article in question is not regarding a person who is self-published, but rather one who has published widely via mainstream publishers, had three award-winning musical albums produced by first-class companies, and achieved (in a cooperative effort) legislation through the US Congress that reestablished the legal existence of two separate Oregon tribes. I take very seriously Wikipedia's admonishments against uncivility and personal attacks. And I respect Wikipedia's standards of notability, verification, and accuracy. The goal is to get this right, not to "attack." And Deor, I had previously changed "Keep" to "Comment" so I'm not sure what your comment above relates to, unless we may have been using the talk-page at the same time and somehow overlapped. Anyway, no harm done, because we agree that "Comment" was the appropriate designation.--Forrestergaz 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaz, you appear to have been taking great care in reading the Userpages of editors voting against you. I already posted a warning on mine that using what I say against me would be construed as an ad hominem attack, so it isn't as if you were not forewarned. Now you're claiming it wasn't a personal attack! Hahaha! Ohconfucius 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this diff shows that it was I who changed it. Deor 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully acknowledge (and appreciate) that you changed it. I was just a bit bemused, because I thought I had changed it too, exactly the same, but perhaps mine didn't go through. As I mentioned to IvoShandor above, I am a real klutz when it comes to navigating my way around Wikipedia. To be honest, I only learned how to insert my electronic signature as a result of these exchanges, so that's another way in which this discussion has been good. Thanks for the clarification. --Forrestergaz 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On this third day into the process, it may be well to concentrate on the substance of the debate. Ohconfucious is simply plain wrong when he says the article is based on WP:SPS. There is nothing self-published at all, and the publications are notable and verified with ISBN numbers and other citations. If references are considered to be the problem, this will be fixed by adding perhaps a dozen or more references for every fact in the article, from reputable newspapers, books, and magazines in Australia, America, Germany, and other parts of the world. Every fact is true. The other main criticism is that some of the external links do not mention the author. That is easily fixed, if need be - we'll just reduce the links to those that do mention the author. No problem. A third comment focuses on notability. But Random House and RCA Records and the University of Nebraska Press and Rothman's and Dufour Editions and landmark legislation shepherded through Congress and sweeping categories in the Australian Country Music Awards and feature articles in Bluegrass Unlimited etc. etc. etc. etc. are not everyday activities. A fourth concern, and maybe this is the big one, is that the text of the article has been channelled through the forrestergaz user site. That was for convenience. If that is the problem, it will be fixed, because there are many users who are familiar with the facts asserted in the article. Wikipedia doesn't ban such contributions outright, but emphasizes the facts and verifiability, which are not at issue. A fifth problem may be that forrestergaz over-reached when he characterized his article as "Good" for the Illinois project, and to that I have pled guilty and apologized profusely. It won't happen again. If the project tags need to be reduced, no problem. In short, the revision and re-referencing of the article is anticipated with joy, once this process has run its course. Every single concern that has been voiced is a comparatively easy fix. Also, if there were an inclination to do so, this discussion could be flooded with numerous commentators who would support the retention of the article, notability, etc., but why lobby people to do so? The article will survive on its own, in the end, because it is true and verifiable.--222.155.139.47 08:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for whoever has to sort through this novel you have written here, you are a lawyer, that's for sure. ;-) IvoShandor 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity / Spam / Autocruft / COI (and from a WP:SPA) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to Ruhrfisch (above). I looked at your user site, and it is very impressive. Ironically, though, that user site lists all of the awards you have been acknowledged for, plus comments, plus your own summation of your achievements, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what you have said and your achievements are very impressive. I do note that if somebody wanted to be critical of you (which I do not wish to be) he or she could say that your site is "self-promoting." That is the whole point - I am much more concerned that your site is accurate, and I am sure that it is, and it is not objectionable in the slightest, even though you (like almost everybody else on the planet) have summarised your own achievements. The same applies to Wikipedia articles. The test is truth and verifiability, not whether the articles may cross the line into what might be characterised as "self-promotion." As I say below, if that were the litmus test, very few articles about living people or music groups or whatever would survive. An article HAS to list the achievements of its subject. That's what an encyclopedia does. And if the article is any good, it will be well-written with a bit of self-deprecating humour. Look at Raymond Carver's article on Wikipedia. There is no mention of the fact, or not much mention, that Carver didn't write his stuff - rather, it was largely written by his editor and his wife, and Carver's name was put on it. This stuff on Carver was written to promote the sale of his books after he was dead. On the other hand, he is clearly a "notable" and merits an article - just a more truthful and complete one, including the recent NY Times articles that cast doubt on his authorship.--Forrestergaz 19:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again IvoShandor, and regarding your comment (two notches above), I think you make the point that I have been trying to make. The subject of this article is a novelist and a lawyer. And the law practice has not been restricted to handlings wills in small-town Illinois - it has extended to representation of Indian tribes in the most important legislation of their tribal lives, i.e., the passage of legislation that restored their tribal treaty rights after years of "termination." It has also extended to representation of Aboriginal clients in the Australian outback. These are faithfully recorded in the article, and further documentation/verification will be added, now that you have raised issues regarding sourcing, so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind. And the novels are not at all what ohconfucius has alleged, "self-published." I'm not perturbed by such incorrect allegations, but they are simply and demonstrably factually wrong. And above all, this exercise is about facts, not about name-calling or false characterisation. Wikipedia has no policy against channelling information through an interested party's user site (if they did, there wouldn't be many articles left about living people), but Wikipedia is concerned with facts. The novels have ISBN numbers, references, etc., and these will be multi-sourced once this current exercise is completed. For that, once again, thanks are due to all concerned. Note also that many of the comments above that say "DELETE" are just unsupported short lines with no back-up and no discussion, which Wikipedia's policies expressly state are inappropriate for these types of consensus-reaching attempts. So when you look fairly at the commentary above, you see unfounded and undocumented brief statements that say "DELETE" and nothing more to back it up, or you see challenges to sources that are in fact challenges to external links. The primary offense that seems to have prompted these exchanges is "self-promotion," and that has been acknowledged insofar as the effort to plug into the Illinois project tag was overly-zealous. But the article itself should be assessed on its merits using Wikipedia standards, not on the basis of anger at a mistake. Actually, I think we'd all agree on that.--Forrestergaz 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a lengthy rant after each delete comment is just bad etiquette, common sense on that one. Ruhrfisch's user page is not subject to any of the standards Wikipedia articles are, nor is any personal website he maintains. Come off it. IvoShandor 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what I see is a few sources that are of questionable reliability and other things you have labeled as external links that are in fact being used to support the text. Call them what you want, the result is one big unsalvageable mess that needs to be completely rewritten by a third party to satisfy Wikipedia inclusion guidelines and policies. Please stop acting as if there is no good reason to delete this piece. IvoShandor 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IvoShandor. Where we differ is in the recommendation that the article be "deleted." It is an easy matter to have the article "rewritten by a third party," because the original article was essentially written by third parties anyway, then collated together via the forrestergaz user site. No problem. And I guess I respectfully disagree that the article is an "unsalvageable mess," because I think that anyone objectively reading it would conclude that it was well-written and informative and comprehensive. Your main concern, as I understand it from your several contributions above, is with sourcing, and that is also capable of a quick fix by providing voluminous sources (which will be done at the conclusion of this discussion process, although I note from other Wikipedia articles that some modesty is in order when piling on sources). How do you understand "external links"? I thought they were different from references, in that they just referred readers to items that may be of common interest, even if the subject matter of the article wasn't specifically referenced? Have I got that wrong? In sum, I confess that I do believe there is "no good reason to delete this piece," although the article could be improved with more extensive sourcing, as will be done. As far as "ranting" and etiquette, I did look up Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion, and the whole point is to have an informed discussion, an exchange of ideas, not to simply say the word "delete" (as some have done) and not justify the deletion by pointing to factual errors in the article (there are none). I am responding to other commentators when it is necessary to do so to stay with the facts, and when it is necessary to correct clear errors and misstatements, and in an effort to arrive at a consensus. The abuse of "etiquette" is by those who are not engaging in discussion, but simply name-calling or making incorrect statements and leaving it at that. I should emphasize that I don't believe you are doing that - you have made some very insightful comments, that are appreciated.--Forrestergaz 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some principles from Wikipedia's "Guide to Deletion": (1) "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion." (2) Always "consider whether the article could be expanded or cleaned up rather than deleting, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AFD." (3) "The author can make his/her case like everyone else." (4) "Always explain your reasoning." (5) "Votes without rationales may be discounted." (6) "The reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." (7) Contributors to the discussion should make a "Well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy in a civil manner." (8) "Majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." (9) Failure to conform to NPOV is usually remedied through editing. (10) "verifiable facts and evidence" are the keys to the decision, not opinions.--Forrestergaz 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we got it, you want to keep the article and disagree with everyone who wants to delete. You're beating your own argument to death. IvoShandor 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, IvoShandor, I am not simply "disagreeing." I am trying to focus on facts and on Wikipedia's standards. What "everyone wants" is not the standard, even if it were true. NO ONE is making a sound or credible or reasoned case for deletion - they are simply name-calling (because they didn't like an (acknowledged) mistake that was made when "self-promotion" was extended to the Illinois project page). When you take away the word "DELETE" from the entries by "everyone" above, you find almost no substance in support of that draconian result, and no reasoning. I have been endeavouring to get a dialogue going, a discussion, as Wikipedia expects, but no one wants to do that. The word "delete" is not reasoned discourse, and it is not compliant with Wikipedia standards.--Forrestergaz 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your opinion, assailing everyone's arguments, which at least mine are reasoned and several people of voice their opinion per others. I find it hard to believe that everyone saying delete doesn't understand Wikipedia policies as you obviously do, demonstrated by your ability to copy, and paste them here verbatim. I don't think you're helping your cause by ignoring all concerns and declaring that the article meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion. I will no longer be addressing this AfD, I have made my well-reasoned point, disagree all you want, assert all you want. I don't care, it won't change my opinions which ARE based on Wikipedia policy. Go away, leave me alone. IvoShandor 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ::* OK - let's get specific and focus on facts, not opinions. (1) The very first comment says "seems" - that was error, to suggest that external links "faked" notability. It was simply wrong. (2) The third comment confuses "sources" with "external links." The references will be supplemented to make every fact stated even more iron-clad. (3) "Self-written autobio" is false, as per the reply. Just because entries come via one user site doesn't mean that that site was the author of the assertions. The test is truth & verification. (4) "self-promoted on Illinois project" - guilty as charged, apologize profusely, didn't appreciate how Wikipedia plays out in these project tags, stupid, sorry, won't happen again. (5) "blogs" - now removed, although blogs can be ok. (6) Dufour Editions "seems" to be non-notable. This is a slur, and not in keeping with the spirit of these discussions. Dufour is a fine established publisher. (7) Some external links don't mention the author. So what? They can be removed, if need be, but if we apply that standard throughout Wikipedia, we've got a lot of work to do. (8) "The sources are crap." Another slur, not what Wikipedia's standards expect. The sources are all legitimate, and a hundred more will be provided if that's what Wikipedia wants. (9) "The Illinois Bar Association is promoting the book" - simply false and malicious. It's just untrue. It was a review of the book by a totally objective person unknown to the author. (10) "Let a third party create the article." Basically, that was done already with this one, but we can remove "forrestergaz" from the mix if that is desireable. The point is to focus on the merits of the article - truth and verifiability. (11) "Delete per all in favour" - what kind of discussion is that? (12) "Article is based on SPS" - totally false. See ISBN Numbers, Random House, Record Companies, publishers. (13) "Delete" by Ruhrfisch - what kind of discussion is that? (14) "bad etiquette" is actually the refusal to follow Wikipedia guidelines for discussion pertaining to deletion, piling up a series of "deletes" without reasoning to further an agenda to delete an article that merits being kept under Wikipedia standards. (15) "a few sources of questionable reliability" - now we are getting somewhere - the argument for delete is reduced to "a few sources" and "external links that support the text." This we can fix, but this is a far far cry from deletion. This is a good thing that has come from the discussion - narrowing the original comment to "a few" (still undesignated). (16) "unsalvageable mess" - not only is this inappropriate name-calling unsupported by reasoned analysis, it is objectively and manifestly untrue. Anyone who is fair-minded would agree that the article is well-written, and nobody has yet disputed a fact in it, because every fact is true.--Forrestergaz 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. I looked up IvoShandor's user site. IvoShandor is the guy who started all of this "delete" dialogue. He is apparently an Illinois guy, upset that a mistake was made in wrongly promoting the article as "good" on the Illinois project tag. He refuses to accept the sincere apology for that, and the withdrawal. He throws around swear words in his discussion, and says "go away and leave me alone." Having started this discussion, he wants to bow out of it without offering any reasoned analysis. More importantly, IvoShandor has promoted/authored a Wikipedia article on one Larry LeSueur. Check it out. Among the citations at the end of IvoShandor's article on LeSeuer are "Voice of America," the "United States Information Agency," and the "International Broadcasting Bureau." Maybe, somewhere in the bowels of these citations, there is some mention of Larry LeSeuer, but I couldn't find any, and if there are any they are pretty well hidden. Most likely, IvoShandor has included these links for the very sensible reason that the links will be of interest to people who are interested in the Larry LeSeuer story, as background and context. That is fine, and that is precisely what was done with the article IvoShandor wants to delete. Larry LeSeuer is a bit obscure, but I would vote to support his article being kept in Wikipedia, even if he's not "notable" by conservative standards. He was interesting. He did good things. IvoShandor has done a good thing to bring him to the world's attention after he was long forgotten. But it is just plain onery of IvoShandor to base his chief criticism of the Gary Forrester article on the allegation that some of the sources don't mention him, when he has done the same thing with LeSeuer, for the same good reasons! For some reason, IvoShandor thinks it is notable that the 93-year-old LeSeuer died while listening to Colin Powell's lies at the United Nations about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass distruction. IvoShandor doesn't comment on whether these lies were to be believed, by Larry LeSeuer or by anyone else. Is there a political edge to IvoShandor's agenda, given that the Forrester article makes clear that the writer/musician/lawyer for Indian tribes has been an antiwar activist all his life, including anti-war activities against America's murderous course in Iraq? Only IvoShandor knows for sure, and he's not saying. --222.155.216.84 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYBODY self-promotes. Here's an example from IvoShandor's site: "I do a lot of work concerning those places in Illinois, including articles and photography. As a result, I have seen some of the most interesting, off the beaten path places in the state. I also harbor a fairly serious interest in architecture and do some work in that area as well. I have raised around thirty articles to Good article status, some were lower quality articles that already existed but most I created from scratch. So far I have one Featured article under my belt. Most of my work lately has been surrounding the 1832 Black Hawk War. Work here has led me to create accounts at other WikiMedia projects. I have accounts (links to my user pages follow) at WikiSource, WikiCommons (where I am one of the top uploaders." Go for it, Ivo - promote yourself. The standards for a Wikipedia article are truth and verifiability. I accept what you've said as true, even if it is self-promoting. Self-promoting isn't a crime, it's a national pastime. --222.155.216.84 09:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.216.84 (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know nothing about what any of us do, or what the Wikipedia is about. This is a straight up Personal Attack that you have just done. We are not the ones under the review here.--Kranar drogin 10:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the basic assumptions of Wikipedia is Assume Good Faith. Please practice it. I became aware of this AFD because of the messages you posted on IvoShandor and Kranar Drogin's talk pages. I read the article and do not see that it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. You are free to post a fair amount of information about yourself on your User Page and much of what is in the article could conceivably be moved to your page (assuming you are Gary Forrester). See for example User:TonyTheTiger. As for my user page, I put a lot of hard work into my Wikipedia edits and am proud of the articles I have helped promote to Featured or Good status. When others have recognized my efforts with awards, I note this on my user page. I do not claim to be a magnetic stir bar in real life - it is a nom de Wiki I have assumed because I value my privacy. If you truly can not tell the difference between a user page and an article, then I am sorry. Please assume good faith, and don't confuse the issue - this is an AFD, not a forum for your criticism and personal attacks on those whose opinions differ from yours. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please don't confuse truth and notability. It is true I walked the dog, ate breakfast, and read the newspaper this morning. I also bathed and dressed myself (more self promotion, I know). All these are true, but none of them are notable in the context of an encyclopedia article. Please see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources (blogs are not), and notability. I hope this helps clarify things. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch's comment, immediately preceding, is exactly the kind of reasoned discourse that Wikipedia expects. Although he and I disagree, he has put his comments in a reasonable and articulate way, arguing his position effectively. One small error - I haven't posted on IvoShandor or Kranar drogin's user sites - I have only commented in this discussion. Ruhrfisch makes the very important point that "truth" should not be confused with "notability," and he gives examples of non-notable truths - walking the dog, eating breakfast, etc. Here is why I respectfully disagree with Ruhrfisch.- the following examples from the article are nothing like walking a dog: (1) two novels with first-rate publishers, Dufour and the University of Nebraska (extended excerpt); (2) legislation through the US Congress restoring two Oregon tribes that were nearly destroyed by racism; (3) three record albums, produced by RCA and by leading Australian companies; (4) a sweep of the Australian grammies in the country-gospel category, and top-five finishes two years in a row followed by a second-place finish in the IBMA's international competition; (5) another published book on American Indian law, by Rothman's; (6) recent New Zealand poetry published by a slew of respected journals; (7) proof provided by ISBN numbers, Random House's characterization of "major figure in Australian country music, a host of complimentary articles in the bible of bluegrass music, Bluegrass Unlimited, etc. etc. etc. My argument boils down to this - those things are more than walking a dog, and they compare very favourably with hundreds if not thousands of articles that Wikipedia has kept.--222.155.216.84 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Kranar drogin - the only people who have engaged in "personal attack" are you and your fellow Illinoisan, IvoShandor, using swear words and gratuitous insults instead of reasoned discourse such as Ruhrfisch's and mine. Although there is an "assumption" of good faith, as Ruhrfisch points out, that "assumption" is not etched in stone, and it can be waived by inappropriate conduct. I have never argued in a court of law, for example (and I know of no one who has done so) that an opponent's argument was "crap" or "shit" - nor have I said to an opponent or a judge "go away and leave me alone." I have apologized to both you and Ivo for the mistake I made, which was to characterize the Forrester article as "good" on the Illinois project page. It was not a mistake of malice, it was a mistake of dumbness, and I am sorry. However, neither of you will accept this sincere apology, and there is not much more I can do about it. Was it an attempt at self-promotion? Yes, of course. I have merely pointed out that we all self-promote, and we do. Ruhrfisch is correct that there is a difference between an article and a user site, but my point was not to blur the two, but to point out that we all self-promote to one degree or another. That is why Wikipedia has its NPOV policy - not to stop self-promotion, but to make sure that it does not render an article untrue or unverifiable. Lastly, regarding IvoShandor's article on Larry LeSeuer, the only point being made was that his criticism of the Forrester article, which started this whole long chain of discussion, was precisely concerned with things he has himself violated in the LeSeuer article - sources that do not name the subject. It is fair argument to point that out. All I am saying is that every external link or other link does not have to specifically name a subject - it can provide background. And I am pointing that out without swearing and without name-calling. It is simply inconsistent to suggest that different standards should apply to different articles.--222.155.216.84 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independant coverage. Epbr123 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Epbr123. This does seem to be a common thread in the reasonable comments that have been made, that there is insufficient "independent coverage." That will be corrected following this discussion, and in addition to Random House, Bluegrass Unlimited, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Dufour Editions, the University of Nebraska Press, RCA Records, Larrikin Records (Australia), the University of South Dakota Press, Poetry New Zealand, and other independent sources, a good number of other "independent coverage" will be provided to support the factual statements in the article. Query whether, in light of that, the appropriate designation might be to revise the article, rather than to delete it. In any event, your comment is appreciated.--Forrestergaz 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some more looking, and found that Gary Forrester scored 199 unique Ghits. Aside from a few commercial sites like Amazon.com, where the Houseboating book ranked in the 1.7 millionsths, and B&N, the vast majority of hits were for a number of namesakes, Gary Forrester democrat legislator from Billings, another from California. There was mention of the subject in a directory listing of Phebus & Koster and one or two links re Indian law - for example, he was cited in "Playing reindeer games: Native Alaskans and the Federal Trust Doctrine", Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Spring 1999 by Dillingham, Terese. I concede that the books may not be self published, but the article itself still miserably fails WP:SELF. Ohconfucius 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So now it's come down to this! Counting Google hits! And distinguishing Wikipedia subjects from other that might have similar names! If counting Google hits is the game, and if that is Wikipedia's standard (it's not), check out & count the Google hits for these people who have Wikipedia articles: Arthur Henry Adams, Fleur Adcock, John Allison, John Barr, James K. Baxter, Jenny Bornholdt, Thomas Bracken, Charles Brasch, Alistair Campbell, Glenn Colquhoun, Allen Curnow, John Dennison, Lauris Edmond, Denis Glover, William Hart-Smith, Sam Hunt, Robin Hyde, Andrew Johnston, Michele Leggott, R. A. K. Mason, Gary McCormick, Cilla McQueen, Mok TzeMing, W. H. Oliver, Count Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk, Rosie Scott, Keith Sinclair, Jacqueline Sturm, Brian Turner, Ian Wedde, Alison Wong Catherine Chidgey, Hugh Cook, Nigel Cox, David Hill,Robyn Donald, Kate Duignan, John Dunmore, Dorothy Eden, Stevan Eldred-Grigg, Chris Else, Abby Gaines, Robin Hyde, Witi Ihimaera, Annamarie Jagose, Fiona Kidman; Elizabeth Knox, Craig Marriner, Mark Prebble, Owen Marshall, Ian Middleton, Michael Noonan, Rosie Scott, Lucinda Thorne,Arthur Baysting, Alannah Currie, Dave Dobbyn, Hamish Gee, Luke Hurley, Karl Kippenberger, Phil Knight, Shona Laing, Willow Macky, Paul Martin, Dalvanius Prime, Age Pryor, James Reid, John Rowles, Bic Runga, Boh Runga, Matthew Thomas, Jon Toogood, John Joseph Woods - Believe me, I could go on and on and on. Google hits are simply not the Wikipedia standard. And the novels in question were only published in 2006-2007. And Wikipedia is not xenophobic. Just because people in New Zealand or Australia are not in a position to score Google hits on the scale of people in North America doesn't mean they are unworthy. Google is international. It wants to change the world. And not every book or magazine article, especially books or articles written at the advent of the Internet such as the Random House book or the Bluegrass Unlimited articles or the reviews or reports of things that came out in the 1980s or early 1990s, makes it on-line. This will make it easy for Wikipedia. We'll just get rid of every article from anywhere in the world that doesn't score a designated number of Google hits.--Forrestergaz 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, you are quite right. 'Counting Ghits is not research', as I am also fond of quoting (you know that, as you've studied my Userpage). However, it can be a useful indicator. So far, you have done little to indicate that you warrant a wiki entry by fulfilling WP:BIO. So, let's see some of the sources you were saying exist, instead of waffling ranting and intimidating. Ohconfucius 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ohconfucius. I agree that we should put aside this deletion process, and get to work on building the source material to Wikipedia's satisfaction. The only complicating factor for a quick turn-around is that I am in New Zealand, and people who have assisted with the writing of this article and the accessing of source material are in Australia, Oregon, South Dakota, Illinois, and other places. I will get in touch with them promptly, because the bulk of the source material is found in hardcopy rather than via sources such as Google. Partly this is because of the date(s) of the source material, and partly this is because the source material simply wasn't (by its nature) the kind that made it to "Ghit-counting." The Random house book, for example, is not referenced on Google. Nor are the Bluegrass Unlimited articles, or countless reviews of things. I do not propose to string-cite every single article or book or record review or piece of legislation that mentions the name "Gary Forrester," but I do propose to provide a selection that addresses truth and verification. I do appreciate the research and effort you have obviously put into this, and I propose that I could probably turn this around, as per your request, within a couple of weeks if I get right onto it with my overseas contacts. Since much of the stuff is hard copy, I would be happy to send photocopies to whomever you suggest, or to whomever may want to see and assess these materials for truth and verification. Alternatively, if there is a way to load this stuff onto Google, I am happy to do that, but I don't know how to. Ironically, this Comment I am making is reflective of precisely the opposite of what got some of the other commentators annoyed - i.e., until the past year, I was not at all interested in "self-promotion," despite the records and the books and the legislation and the poems and Australian awards, but I was encouraged to do so vis-a-vis Wikipedia and agreed to act as the channel for the put-together. I think you will also be agreeable that the number of books sold during a person's lifetime is not the litmus test for notability. John Kennedy Toole, for example, never sold a thing in his life, and never published in his life, and committed suicide, but thereafter his mother (with the help of Walker Percy) "self-promoted" her son's work, and was so successful that her son received a posthumous Pulitzer and richly deserves his place on Wikipedia, even if it was for only a single work. Anyway, I suggest that the course you have suggested is the reasonable one, and that this "deletion" process be discontinued, and that (say) a couple of weeks be allowed to supplement the references with a representation (not an encyclopedia) of materials that provide additional support for the facts asserted. Is that agreeable to all concerned? I must say, in terms of the long list of other Wikipedia articles I mentioned to you in the earlier exchange, I wonder if a problem might be that the "Forrester" site is a bit longer (including three photographs) than the typical Wikipedia article for a person with this level of achievement. Maybe the length of the article, and its more comprehensive format, caused some of the commentators to think it was unmeritorious. But I respectfully submit that a well-written and presentable article is always a good thing, no matter how humble the subject matter. Cheers, and thank you for your very constructive suggestion. I'll look forward to seeing if we now have consensus. If this is the end of the substantive discussion, and there are no further reasonable comments, I believe it is fair to say that we have reached a resolution.--Forrestergaz 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my user site, I have just received the following comments, which are helpful and relevant to the discussion above. I will cut & paste them here. Ohconfucius's tone and thoughtfulness in the following remarks are appreciated, even though I respectfully disagree that with the guess the "the article is headed for deletion," because of the overriding Wikipedia standard that NPOV problems are addressed normally by better sourcing (which is exactly what Ohconfucius sensibly proposes below and above). Also, I could concede for pragmatic reasons, as Ohconfucius constructively suggests, but I won't because I think it would be wrong to do so. Any reader of the lengthy exchanges above will know that I have not threatened or insulted or attacked or used foul language, but other commentators have done so. I am not one who is inclined to be cowed by such tactics, even though I do anticipate in any event a much more thoroughly-footnoted article (in the old fashioned way) than the existing version. I just would prefer to do that without the interim step of deletion, which I regard as pejorative and unfounded based on Wikipedia standards. Here (below) are Ohconfucius's latest (and well-received) comments:

"I think the article is headed for deletion. I would suggest that you did not fight it any further this round. Tempers are flared, and the best way to cool the debate is to concede. However, you will be glad to know deletion is not a permanent process, and that many articles are deleted only to be re-created in much better and stronger stead. I assume from what you say that you will be able to create an article with sufficient sources to justify its place in wikipedia, particularly per WP:BIO and its subsets WP:MUSICIAN and WP:PROF. It would be a shame, but for the short duration which you would require to put together the relevant proof, the absence of the article will be justified, I am sure." Cheers, Ohconfucius 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) "Another suggestion is that you should consider encouraging the other contributing editors of the Gary Forrester article to create Users here, and work on the article under their own names. It would certainly give the 'more accurate' impression by your account that this was a collaborative effort, and avoid the WP:COI breach which caused much of the distrust in the first place." Ohconfucius 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) --Forrestergaz 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamcruftisement. This needs said: ISBN numbers do not even prove that a work exists, let alone that it wasn't self published - ∅ (∅), 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment immediately above is yet another of those that adds nothing whatsoever to the dialogue except unsupported opinion and bias. Have a look at the comments that vote "delete" and see what they are saying. If I were thinner-skinned, I would take offense against a comment such as "ISBN numbers do not prove that a work exists, let alone that it wasn't self-published." Every one of the books cited in the article in question was published, and every ISBN number is valid. If not, why doesn't someone just come out and make that accusation instead of repeated personal attacks that are defamatory. You know, some of the comments made above by the likes of IvoShandor are in fact actionable in court. Now don't go saying I'm making a threat or a personal attack, because I'm not - I'm just saying that some of the attacks above are actionable in court, which they are, and the people who are making them anonymously should realize that their identities are readily discernible should anyone (and I emphasize, not me) decide to sue them for making such defamatory statements about Wikipedia contributors. It is defamatory to state to others that facts in an article have been "faked" etc. The people who have made these charges should withdraw them, and I am asking them to. If they want to say I need more sources, I'll do that - I'll source this article to death. If they want to say it was wrong of me to "self-promote" by declaring the article "good" in the Illinois project site, I have admitted to that wrong and apologized and the "good" designation has been withdrawn and won't happen again. But if they are accusing me of lies or faking information, that is crossing the line, and they should apologize. As I say, sooner or later someone is going to sue somebody who recklessly makes such remarks on pages such as this. Ivo - I'm looking forward to your apology in particular. I would appreciate it within 24 hours.--222.155.216.84 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked this IP for making legal threats.--chaser - t 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This is incredible, Chaser's action in "blocking this IP for making legal threats." All you have to do is READ the comment that provoked his action, which EXPRESSLY says that there is no legal threat. It is not a legal threat to point out the truth that a comment is defamatory. A threat would be "I am going to sue you." That is a threat. In this instance, the comment was PRECISELY AND EMPHATICALLY the opposite.--Forrestergaz 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTOBIO. Michaelbusch 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...and I almost question the veracity of some of the items in the article. Why can I find no Internet reference to his winning the Flannery O'Connor award? And the IBMA was not located in Nashville in 1990, it was located in Owensboro, Kentucky. There are too many unreferenced "facts" in this article to make me feel good about it. It reeks of self-promotion. --Smashville^BONK! 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IvoShandar's reference breakdown. It doesn't help matters when the references aren't linked to the text they are supposed to reference, but it looks like the accusations of vanispamcruft several editors have suggested are appropriate. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:N, or WP:MUSIC. Constant berating of editors supporting deletion is a perfect example of WP:COI at work, additionally it's a superb way of shifting consensus away from the subject and comes across merely as desperation. If indeed an article's subject was truly notable then a Wikipedia article about them would be inconsequential, when this level of desperation is shown I ask myself, why? For this level of personal involvement someone either has too high an opinion of themselves or it's an attempt to promote themselves for some reason, usually money. ---- WebHamster 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See? The discussion just gets more and more ill-informed. Smashville, above, just didn't read the article. NOWHERE does the article assert that Forrester won a Flannery O'Connor. The article asserts, accurately, that Forrester was fictionalized as a character in the works of Philip F. Deaver, who did win a Flnnery O'Connor for those works. How is a person meant to respond in a constructive dialogue when people keep misrepresenting the facts, over and over and over again????? And of course the IBMA was located in Owensboro, until it moved to Nashville. I should know - I played there, in Owensboro, on the banks of the Ohio River, with Alison Krauss and Bill Monroe and Ralph Stanley and Emmylou Harris and Doyle Lawson and Peter Rowan. Allison Krauss (who is from my hometown, and who was just getting introduced around bluegrass circles at the time, at the age of 16, at the beginning of her great career) was kind enough to loan me her bass player and songwriter, Jon Pennell, also from the Champaign-Urbana area. He played with us before the IBMA in Owensboro. These are the facts, not the hysterical intentional or unintentional mis-readings by Smashville. Why would Smashville even make such allegations, when he admittedly doesn't know what the facts are. His stated objection is to his sense of "reeking," not facts. This is becoming a popularity contest, led by people engaged in personal attacks who are like pots calling the kettle black. I'll put out a challenge to Smashville - come right out and say that a fact in the article is wrong. Just say it. Don't use weasel words like "reeks" or "I almost question the veracity." If you want to allege that there are lies in the article, say so. Otherwise, drop your false implications, and be man enough or woman enough to admit that you are just blowing smoke, not facts.--Forrestergaz 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - In other words, the article is full of original research. I misread that he was "fictionalized" in a short story. I'm sorry, but it's such a weak claim to notability in a lead that I never thought to read it. Do you have any evidence to prove that? Tell me where I made a personal attack? I was talking about the article. And I already showed you a fact that was wrong - in 1990, the IBMA was not located in Nashville. There is no evidence whatsoever of notability. Supposed mentioning in a minor book 16 years ago with no evidence to back it up? Being "fictionalized" in another book (which - with no supporting sources - reeks of original research). All I can tell is that it seems like this Forrester guy is a non-notable lawyer that happens to have brushed shoulders with some famous people and has had some stuff published and somehow thinks he is famous for it. This is one of the more blatant self promotion pages I have seen. --Smashville^BONK! 04:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Webhamster's comments are more appropriate and in keeping with Wikipedia standards, for the most part. I agree with him/her that the sources need enhancement. That has been agreed from the earliest days of this discussion. I disagree with Webhamster that there has been "berating" of editors. The truth is that the editors have used abusive language and foul language and made reckless accusations that they have totally failed to justify - they are just attacking without foundation, because they are annoyed. You will notice that I have made no effort to call in a bunch of comments to say Keep Keep Keep, because Wikipedia says we are not supposed to do that. However, it would be very interesting to be a NZ fly on the wall and see what off-page conversations have taken place between say, IvoShandor and Kranar or whatever his name is. This is taking on all the hallmarks of a lynching, not a discussion. Where Webhamster strays from logic is his suggestion that "money" is at issue here - why would he/she say something like that? It's totally unfounded, it is just an innuendo and (yes) another personal attack that is devoid of fact. It just boggles the mind why people say such things. Why don't they focus on the facts. It is fair game to say the sources need enhancing. It is fair game to make the criticism that the edit on the Illinois project tag was self promoting. I accept those criticisms. But why go on to say false things? And when I respond and point out that those things are false, and defamatory, do the people apologize (as I have done, for my errors)? No - they engage in still more name-calling and innuendo. It is totally bizarre. Below is another example, which was sent to my user site. --Forrestergaz 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly stating an opinion, and making clear that it is an opinion and not a statement of fact is, quite simply, not defamation, but then you knew that didn't you? To clarify my logic as you seem to be attempting non-understanding. You're an author, you're a musician, right? Musicians and authors have to promote themselves so that their work makes money, right? My opinion is that you are promoting yourself on Wikipedia as part of that process. If you don't understand that simple logic then I would have to accuse you of deliberate obtuseness. ---- WebHamster 21:18, 8 November 2007 (UT

Comment - this came into my user site this morning (New Zealand time) - I quote: "I blocked your IP address for a month for a strongly implied legal threat. If the address changes, you would be wise not to repeat the same threats with your account.--chaser - t 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)" This is absolutely incredible. If you will read my comment above which provoked this response, I made it absolutely clear that I was not making a legal threat. Here are my exact words from above: Now don't go saying I'm making a threat or a personal attack, because I'm not - I'm just saying that some of the attacks above are actionable in court, which they are, and the people who are making them anonymously should realize that their identities are readily discernible should anyone (and I emphasize, not me) decide to sue them for making such defamatory statements about Wikipedia contributors. It is not a threat to say that some of the remarks made in this discussion have been defamatory - it is a simple statement of fact. It is not a threat to ask people who make false and defamatory statements to withdraw them and to apologize - it is a request. But once again, what can you do when commentators over and over again mischaracterize facts and mis-represent statements? What can you do?? --Forrestergaz 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can show some self-restraint and allow the AfD to continue unencumbered with your diatribes? ---- WebHamster 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Tom 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, I didn't attack anyone, and didn't use any swear words as the IP seems to think. I suggest you tone down your ridiculous rhetoric. I will not apologize for something I did not do. IvoShandor 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To IvoShandor - Where I come from, "Crap" means "Shit" - but maybe it's different in your part of Illinois. Where I come from, "faked" means "deceived," but maybe it has a different meaning in DeKalb. Where I come from, ridiculing an excellent publisher like Dufour is a slur, but perhaps you meant something different. Don't worry, Ivo - You will win this, and I will get deleted, and you can feel vindicated. I've known people like you all my life. They slur, they deceive, and then they blame other people when they refuse to accept it lying down. And the judges are always on their side. That's how they got to be judges. What have you ever done for American Indians? What have you ever done to stop murderous wars? What 30 musical compositions of yours have been recorded? What awards have you won? What novels have you had published? What poems have you written and published? I get the impression that name-calling and foul language is how you get your amusement.

Comment To WebHamster - You have made two new comments above. Here is a response: (a) Calling a person a liar, stating that they have faked facts, is defamatory. But then you knew that. Comments to that effect have fueled this discussion on the part of some wonderfully mean-spirited people. (b) It is your "opinion" that the smell of money is behind the article in question - upon what facts do you base that opinion? You didn't couch it as an "opinion" in your original comment, but rather as a snide innuendo. If you have no facts to back up such a slur, then you shouldn't say such things. There is no money in this. And it is probably fair to say that every single article about a living person, or nearly every single article about a living person, has had some element of self-aggrandizement about it. So what? Is it a matter of degree? Where do you draw the line? Ruhrfisch (above) had it about right - if the article is about walking a dog, it does not belong in Wikipedia. If an article is about (a) publishing novels & poems, (b) winning national awards, (c) successful legislation and litigation reversing generations of racism, etc., then the question moves to sources. In short answer - the article is not motivated by money, and it is wrong of you to suggest otherwise. If you have facts to the contrary, please bring them to the table.--Forrestergaz 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems we're onto the "have you stopped beating your wife?" tactics now. My opinion is that there is, at worst, money at the bottom of this, at best it's personal pride. Either way it's COI and you should recuse yourself from this discussion. And just to clarify, it's not a statement of fact, it's an opinion based on interpolation. I may be right, I may be wrong. I just call 'em as I see 'em. Incidentally my comments were solely relative to my comments and your description of defamation, I don't deign to speak for others, I only speak for myself. PS, in my part of the world "crap" is just a mild epithet. ---- WebHamster 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --David Shankbone 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, then Gary, I am sorry if you took those statements so personally, they weren't meant to impugn your personal accomplishments or beliefs. However, you do not know the first thing about me, or what I have done. I do not have any need to justify myself to you. IvoShandor 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Ivo - Apology and explanation accepted, with thanks. To everyone else - bring it on. Believe me, I have had uphill battles (on behalf of others, I might emphasize, not on my own behalf) that make this look like a roll in the hay with Aunt Sally. I know you'll win this. It's ok. Say, in the spirit of love, below is a poem that is offered to all of the commentators to this discussion, for the pure joy of it. If you want to know the truth, I do love you all. Here it is but the lines don't come out right in this particular format):

Unrequited

God of my beginnings, gates, and doorways,/ even then you ciphered right from wrong,/ and you were legion. You saw that/ I was good. You saw that I was good./

I lay with you in intimate communion till you rested./ Male and female, I lay with you in intimate communion./ On second coming, you breathed the only life you knew/ into my waiting face./

In lucid intervals, you spoke incongruously of trees,/ trees forbidden, learning trees,/ shattering your underworlds./

My lover, flesh of miscreated flesh,/ slipped a secret seed into her secret self./ I dreamt that she and I would be as gods/ and never die. We clothed ourselves/

in coats of fur, my love and I – / you cursed the ground we walked upon./ And I, still perfect in your images,/ returned to you your mystic love. --Forrestergaz 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I do hope you have the copyright holder's permission to reproduce lyrics. This has to be disruption, surely? ---- WebHamster 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks bad enough to be his own. Certainly the worst poetry I've seen in a good while. Sorry Gary, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original poetry. - ∅ (∅), 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little too sentimental for my tastes. --David Shankbone 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere. The issue of deletion is all but decided, anyway, and I am accustomed to accepting the decision of the referee with equanimity. I really like Shankbone's comment - it's spot on. "User:I do not exist" regards the poetry as awful, and that most assuredly is a valid commentary. Other might think it's ok; in any event, we are now having a more enjoyable discussion than anything that preceded, which blurred fact with opinion with name-calling - Shankbone and "I do not exist" are addressing something where subjective impressions are much more relevant than "facts," which are essentially non-existent when describing how a poem appeals or doesn't appeal. Good old WebHamster. Good old "I do not exist." Good old Shankbone. Actually, I wish you guys were in New Zealand. We could have a beer at the local pub. I must say that these discussions, all of the ones above, have provided some of the most fun I've had in quite a while. Thanks guys.--Forrestergaz 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the place for me to critique your poetry, either, and I should have resisted the temptation. Oh well. - ∅ (∅), 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's cool, "I do not exist." And while I've directed everybody in the world to Shankbone's user site (see the next comment below), I must say that yours is pretty fucking good too. Congrats.--Forrestergaz 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everybody - check out Shankbone's user site - he is doing some incredible cutting edge stuff. I'm not kidding. You owe it to yourselves to check this out. Good on ya, Dave!!--Forrestergaz 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Fellow Commentators - It's Friday evening here in New Zealand, springtime heading into summer. I just played three sets of tennis at the Thorndon Tennis Club, the third oldest club in the world (after Wimbledon and something else). It's just a Vespa-ride down the hill from where I live, and I pass Katherine Mansfield's house on the way down, and it's beautiful, and she used to play on these very courts, one of the greatest short-story writers the world has ever known. I don't know if she had a decent backhand or not. Gee it's lovely here. Have any of you ever been to New Zealand? Wellington, the capital city, is especially great, hills surrounding the harbour, a sort of postage-stamp San Francisco without San Francisco's problems. This is one of the finest cities in the world. Everything is coming into perspective. I got an email from Illinois today advising that both my parents are dying, slowly but surely, in a nursing home in Central Illinois. The connection back to Katherine Mansfield, the mutability all around, the fact that this place is sitting on one of the world's most highly-strung tectonic plates waiting for a huge earthquake that will destroy the city at a moment's notice. It doesn't matter if you succeed in deleting my article, as I'm sure you will. I don't really even know why I bothered. I should have just emailed my contributors & supporters and reminded them that I am nobody. I don't think I'll bother to re-submit once the deletion goes through. I'll just keep writing my lousy poems and playing my silly bluegrass songs, and enjoying Wellington and my family, and counting my blessings. I can't complain. From a more long-term angle, you guys have done me a favour. I just wish America wasn't over there in Iraq killing innocent people on the basis of all the lies, lie after lie after lie, told by the Bush administration. One great thing about being in NZ is that not a single cent of my taxation dollars is going to support those murderers, Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al. I know that not all Americans support this. But nobody's really doing much about it either, and our poor boys and girls from the inner cities and the reservations keep dying for these silver-spoon pricks, and almost half of the American public still supports it, no matter what the polls say. Who is accepting responsibiity for these mass murders? Where is the sense of horror?--222.155.133.222 07:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchin ryu[edit]

Notability is not made clear in article. Lots of ghits but not effort made to address issues over the last 8 months. Single entry by author.Peter Rehse 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 13:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was originally going with full Delete but then I saw the following edit summary by a third party: I've heard of this and I'm in Australia... author definitely should get more time to work on this article --Blanchardb 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes I saw that too - but that was 8 months ago with no changes to even make borderline. I've heard of lots of things too - some are notable some are not.Peter Rehse 14:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be referenced. If it really is 40ish years old and has multiple schools taught in public school systems, it is probably notable enough for an article, but this assertion must be referenced in secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford44 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sourced claims of notability. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known style of Karate. JJL 14:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we know that it's well known? How well known is it? How can we assess this with no sources? Give references that support it being notable and I'd change my vote to keep. Bradford44 15:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duck raping[edit]

Completely unreferenced, appears to be a neologism, and without assertion of notability. Speedy delete tag removed by third party. Nyttend 13:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless it is sourced and its notability shown. --Blanchardb 13:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fall under WP:NEO. TonyBallioni 13:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed Speed Delete flag as it clearly didn't fall under the criteria. It MAY fall under WP:NEO, however, there is an opportunity to clean up the article with appropriate sources as well as more extensive documentation. It's important to realize that the practice of Duck raping is one that should be documented and addressed for reference. 204.214.90.129 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that the speedy-delete tag was removed by User:Luminousbit. Nyttend 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and call PETA. There are no sources for this. Okay, one. Unverifiable. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 19:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 06:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashmate[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by me, the article has since been edited by its author, and the CSD tag contested with the following comment:

This radio, the sears-roebuck dashmate is indeed a real life am/fm/cb radio as described in the pictures included in the article. I believe that since it is in fact a real radio that was made in 1965 and this page would be the only living page that talks about this piece of memorabilia, it should be added to the Wikipedia and not deleted. It would be a part of American history as this is the only surviving radio of it's kind(it's the first and only to the best of my personal knowledge for an am/fm radio to have a cb feature for 1965, and the fact that it was made by sears-roebuck in the USA and Simpsons-Sears in Canada, makes it that much more rarer). I have pleaded my case.[27]

I still believe the notability of this article is questionable, though I would no longer go as far as requesting speedy deletion. I want the notability discussed here. -- Blanchardb 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. This article does not assert notability in the least bit. There are no sources and until a few minutes ago the article had sentences such as "This page has been created by the author so something can be said about the radio." If the author wished for something to be said he/she should either create a blog, or a website, or even go to yahoo answers to ask questions about it, but this article should never have been created on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni 14:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TonyBallioni. Rarity, for an article sold at Sears, means few people were interested by it. --Blanchardb 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Nominator's !vote is in the deletion nomination. -- Jreferee t/c 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I guess the article will have to be deleted as the author of the article can't find any references to this radio in particular(the am/fm/ with cb feature). I can find several that have the 8-track feature but not the cb feature, and this is ridiculous to not be able to find any information to back my article up. Sorry guys, if you want to delete it then do so. There's obviously nothing I can do to prevent it. + -Logansryche/the author. Logansryche (talk · contribs · logs) 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is your wish that the page be deleted you can request it by placing the db-author template at the top of the page. -- TonyBallioni 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per The Articles Author. I think it's bs for Blanchardb to sit there and say "because it's a rare item made by sears, no one's interested in it". This radio is part of American history and should be a part of Wikipedia. I'd add more info to it but i don't have much more. You know, for an online encyclopedia, this is bull. You guys make it extremely hard to add articles on rare pieces of history (whether it has direct references or not). I think the pictures of the radio are enough credible proof. -- Logansryche (talk · contribs · logs) 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Logansryche (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee t/c 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you missed my point. If an item sold by Sears is so rare, it means that they had a hard time selling those. American history? Come on... --Blanchardb 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any sources for this, and the topmost relevant Google hits are for people selling vintage radios on eBay. This is not a question of people being interested in it, it's a question of whether it meets Wikipedia's guidelines about notability and verifiability, and it doesn't seem to. -- Accounting4Taste 23:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle; article cannot be attributed to a verifiable source. L337 kybldmstr 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Author. Aren't pictures alone creditable enough? It's of the actual radio! And like I told Stiffle, the only thing that came close was a dashmate with an 8track player instead of a cb radio. This is the only surviving radio and I am trying to find out as much on the radio as possible but when I get hit with this "status:delete" i'm like wtf (sorry for the language). 12.45.207.2 (talk · contribs · logs) 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Blanchardb, i don't think you quite know what you're talking about. When an item becomes rare it means theres none of them left, not that they weren't popular! This also goes along with my '73 suburban. They're the most successful SUV on the planet and yet mine is the only surviving one of that style. I think you're a bit crossed my friend. 12.45.207.2 (talk · contribs · logs) 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC) This comment was added by User:12.45.207.2, who has few or no edits outside this topic. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It sounds to me like the original author owns one of these things, and that's why he insists on having a Wikipedia article about them. In all likelihood, the now-deleted pictures were taken by him, and he forgot to properly tag them for copyright status. But that some piece of machinery exists and someone has pictures to prove it does not by itself constitute sufficient notability. How many of these radios were sold? If too few, then what later technologies were influenced by its design? That's notability. Not the mere fact that there is still one of them around. Or else, I could also write an article about my Panasonic Quintrix TV which is gathering dust but still in working condition. --Blanchardb 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blanchardb, technicaly speaking then, I have no idea how many were sold. The entire idea behind such a creation was combining a cb radio with an am/fm radio for ease of installation. And for some reason the pictures were deleted (no matter). Well I guess then technically I don't have a leg to stand on. All I know is that the radio is the last of its kind and know little to nothing about it. If I can't keep the article, then will someone please delete the article in full along with my account. I'm tired of arguing my point and not getting anywhere. Erase my pictures too if it hasn't been done so. 12.45.207.2 (talk · contribs · logs) 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- The article says I quote "Not much is known about this radio". Until there is there's no point in creating an article about it. What is this, an information fishing expedition? Bombycil 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There some information in Consumers' Research Magazine (September 1981) AM-FM car stereo cassette receivers. (comparison) Volume 64; Pag 24 (discussing Sears Dashmate 564.507001 (radio-tape unit, automobile) and Sears Dashmate 280.505601 (radio-tape unit, automobile)). Google books brings up some info. Google products brought up the Dashmate Antenna, but not the radio-tape unit. No prejudice against recreating the article if enough reliable source material can be located. -- Jreferee t/c 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. W.marsh 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globe199[edit]

Disputed PROD. Article is true, but does not reach notability requirements. Better off as a merge, I think? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Non-notable to non-players. --Blanchardb 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zachary Jaydon[edit]

The result was delete and salt. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was delete. The article is quite poorly written, but it does contain valid assertions of importance. However, as the consensus below clearly believes, the subject does not have sufficient notability to warrant an article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Thomas[edit]

Subject is not notable Wildhartlivie 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Well, I do not think that the subject is not notable. She is a child star and a possible future teen/adult sensation as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The trouble is that outside of a myspace page and a vidzone page, both of which are self-promoting, the only other outside info I could find on her was a page that said the supposed record label signing was more of a sham and the website connected to the label only consisted of a petition about downloading. In any case, there's nothing new on her since this article, and the event it discusses occurred. I can't find evidence of her being a child star.

Delete - Non-notable. Someone can write an article about her when/if she becomes an adult sensation, not before. --DAJF 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, full of weasel words too. TJ Spyke 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, obviously NN. L337 kybldmstr 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely subjective - "shot to fame"? NN per L337 kybldmstr, TJ Spyke and nom. Bearian'sBooties 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Inadequate assertion of notability doesn't make the grade and, as te nom correctly identifies, the bulk of the cites in the article are primary sources. -Splash - tk 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities[edit]

Does not appear to meet notability standards stipulated by WP:ORG in the absence of non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. while the article employs a lot of citations, most of these are self-cites, or to sources which don't provide the required non-trivial coverage. concerns surrounding the issue of notability and lack of third party coverage were highlighted in Jan 07 on the talk page (Talk:World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities#Notable), but no sufficient measures have been taken to resolve them since then. ITAQALLAH 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless sourced to secondary sources. Yahel Guhan 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep publisher and international coalition of non-trivial Shi'a Muslim communities. Googling "World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities" gives a large number of Shi'a sites referesing the the federation. --Striver - talk 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- the search result produces under 900 google hits, which is low by most standards. ghits aren't an indicator of notability in any case, what is key here is the volume of non-trivial coverage given by independent reliable sources, and i believe that is lacking here. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- i would argue that the coverage provided by the google'd sites are non-trivial in this case. Even the local märsta mosque is affiliated with them, they strecht several continents in affiliation span. --Striver - talk 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - which sites are you referring to? is coverage in-depth and present in multiple sources (i.e. the organization, its history, and its activities described over several paragraphs)? are the sources independent of WFKSI, and reliable? ITAQALLAH 11:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ITAQALLAH 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Article is concerned with non-notable organisation. Bobby1011 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, non-notable. Prodego ^talk 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finola Hackett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination Found in the WP:PROD workstream despite having been to AFD twice before. The statement from the PROD-nominator reads: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. This event is covered. The person need not be. There is relevant info on 79th Scripps National Spelling Bee 2006" User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the spelling bee winners should be deleted in my opinion. Runners up and honourable mentions definitely aren't encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The winner would be notable as in any other national competition, but not the others. DGG (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But she was the winner- of the Canadian national bee- twice. No offense, but you clearly didn't even read the article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite aware of it, and should have said that I didnt consider that a significant competition, national level or not.DGG (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Disgustingly strong keep God, how many times have I had to make this argument before? First of all, did anybody above read the article? Hackett is the two-time national champion in her competition before finishing second in America's competition. To get that far three times, she had to defeat thousands (and, really, millions) of competitors. In the case of the National Spelling Bee, she was the runner-up in the longest-running and most well-regarded competition of its kind, which was also broadcast in primetime on network television. Obviously, the media coverage is there, as multiple articles about the subject from reliable sources are present in the article. I'm not sure what everyone's problem here is, but it's insane to think that there's a chance this will be deleted. How can it be claimed that Hackett is non-notable when she's twice won a well-known national contest and has an article that meets WP:V? -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable per the terms of WP:Notability; content is verifiable, neutral and in all other respects compliant with policy. The deletes so far all seem to be snap judgements, not rationales.--Father Goose 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment transient, ephemeral coverage of a runner-up in the Scripps competition who won the newer of Canada's two major spelling bees ("held annually in Canada since 2005"). The Canadian bee is affiliated with, and appears to serve as a 'feeder' for, the Scripps National Spelling Bee (Canspell: 41 competitors; Scripps: 286 cmpetitors), allowing its winners to compete at Scripps--and the past winners have all gotten less-than-top placements at Scripps. I would suggest that Soohyun Park is also of questionable notability. JJL 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, you should read the article about the older Canadian bee, which states that it almost exclusively caters to Otarians. It is hardly a national bee. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These claims that the Canadian bee is unimportant, or that Finola Hackett is unimportant as well ("delete, nn") are proclaimations, not rationales, and as such carry no weight. Multiple news organizations wrote stories specifically about her, which is "more than trivial" and objectively establishes her notability.--Father Goose 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Atrian 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking222. The Spelling Bee is a well-publicized contest and finishing in second place appears to have won her a fair amount of attention. Winning the Canadian contest (twice) only adds to the notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winning the Spelling Bee twice is notable. Their is a reason why this article survived the first 2 afd's. Noor Aalam 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because she was mentioned in a few newspaper articles doesn't confer notability. Her participation is adequately covered on the spelling bee article. Bombycil 16:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was the subject of those newspaper articles. Big distinction.--Father Goose 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximillion Cooper[edit]

Nominated with merging this page in mind, I have attempted to merge this page but it ended up being reverted without a reason. My reason is does not assert notability other then the Gumball 3000 event which he is solely known for. Moosato Cowabata 11:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is known for founding the rally, and has received quite a bit of coverage for doing so. The man is a relentless self-promoter, as a Google search quickly indicates, but this is not a spammy article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it needs to be worked on, and needs sourcing but I think he should have an article separate from Gumball. Ridernyc 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is not to delete but to merge to Gumball 3000 as he is only known just for the event and that is it. Plus I seen numerous edits such as band members who are not famous other than being a particular group being merged into that associated page such as reality TV contestants, that is why I am suggesting a merge to speed things up, not a deletion. Moosato Cowabata 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak merge~~ agree with nominator that Cooper is solely known for the event itself as how that current edit appears to be, otherwise it needs to be extensively written. Willirennen 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on the other hand, there is plenty of notable people who are notable for just one thing, such as one of numerous Land Speed Record holders. As I said, the only problem with this is it needs further expansion, plus some of the bits from his page such as how he founded the company that led to the event, could be moved into the Gumball 3000 page, but would leave it to very little context. Furthermore, googling his name, I found this link which proves there is more than this current edit to be written about him, such as his education at St. Martins College, his stint as a racing driver. Willirennen 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running gags in Friends[edit]

This article was split off from the main Friends article a couple of years ago. The original version was a list of recurring elements and plot points related to the main characters that bordered on original research. The list has now grown to an indiscriminate collection of just about every single character trait and gag in the series, regardless of whether it is recurring or not. All of the major points already appear in the individual character articles or the parent article and following the deletion of Running gags in Seinfeld for the same reasons I'd suggest that this article goes too. Brad 11:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could this article BE any more OR? JuJube 12:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, anything of true importance is already on the character pages. Johnred32 12:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The one where everyone yelled delete."Merkinsmum 12:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in nominating the equivalent Seinfeld article in the above-linked AFD. Otto4711 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. jj137 (Talk) 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research, absolutely no reason for this to have an article. If there is anything verifiable it should be merged into Friends or one of the character articles--Cailil ^talk 00:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. OR, non-notable. Doctorfluffy 06:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than succinctly covered at Friends#Running gags. 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redl@nds597198 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Panhandle Mental Health Mental Retardation[edit]

Non-notable charitable organization. There were a few bits and pieces in the 72 unique ghits but nothing to verify the article. MER-C 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of verification for this article is a major concern here. Fails notability guidelines as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll userfy if anyone thinks there's some information worth merging to Zork W.marsh 15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zork timeline[edit]

This fictional timeline has no reliable primary sources and reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time to destroy the world, I mean the article. Delete JuJube 12:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, talk about an unencyclopedic article! Nyttend 13:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All relevant information already covered in Zork. --Blanchardb 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zork. A redirect from this page isn't going to cause any pain. There's no reason to have invoked the AfD process. -Harmil 06:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Doubtful any sort of notability can be established per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zork 132.205.99.122 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean & Keep or Merge - I think the article is very, very messy. I think if the entire thing is rewritten, expanded, added more real world context. Then it might be a good idea to keep it. Otherwise I think a merge/redirect would be good instead. I don't think it needs to be deleted though. --businessman332211 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. —Moondyne 08:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November Ashes[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable cricket "tournament" invented by a few families on holiday after 8 beers. Prod removed by creator with the comment "Because the November Ashes is not non notable and contains no false information and no copyrighted material is used" but the article still has no indication whatsoever of why this is important, and is unreferenced. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and completely unverifiable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the keep arguements didn't give a policy based reason for keeping. This is a Secret ^account 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Reynolds on TV[edit]

This list is better suited for IMDb. the_undertow ^talk 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But rename to Burt Reynolds filmography and include his films from the main article. Lugnuts 09:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A step below indiscriminate information, this list of TV shows tells us far less than what one would find on imdb.com or on a Burt fansite. In one paragraph in the main article, you could write, "Reynolds appeared in Riverboat, Gunsmoke, Branded..." etc. etc. etc. and take up less space. If you go to imdb.com, you'll likely find the role that Reynolds played, and possibly the date of the TV episode he was in. However, why should we be hosting articles that duplicate what's already on imdb.com anyway? Mandsford 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEPWikipedia is not imdb also, there are several things on this page that did not come from imdb. Also this page was created to help keep down the size of the main page. Also kept of stuff that people might would try to say was useless trivia. But if thats what you want. It can be added to this page expanding it further.Aladdin Zane 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk show appearances are trivial. Most of those appearances aren't even slightly notable in Reynolds's career. They don't belong in the main article, but they shouldn't be added to a new article either. Crazysuit 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Burt Reynolds. This is an unnecessary content fork from there. His article is not so massive that it can't contain this material. No need for a split at this time. If editors there want to whittle it down to notable appearances or whatever, they can thrash it out on the talk page. Otto4711 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete, but don't merge the "list of talk show appearances" back. I originally removed the "list of talk show appearances" from the main article, Reynolds has made hundreds of guest appearances on talk shows and variety shows, so there doesn't seem to be much point in trying to list them all. The IMDb link already lists 118 of them, which is more than twice as many as this list, if anyone wants to see every talk show appearance they can visit IMDb. Crazysuit 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk show appearances may not be notable (individual ones may or may not be) but his recurring and starring series roles certainly are and belong in the main article. Otto4711 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or get rid of everything NN on this list and merge. If people want a complete list they can just go to IMDB. Ridernyc 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, makes sense as a subarticle. Everyking 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI see no harm in keeping this list, one man's trash is another man's treasure. What other sites do or don't list should have no bearing on what is worth keeping or not. Jacksinterweb 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Harm has no bearing as well. the_undertow ^talk 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Harm actually does have bearing here. Also if you notice atleast half say keep, while less than half say delete. So oI think it is time you removed the tag from the page and we close this discussion, with the page being left here.Aladdin Zane 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOHARM is not a good argument to keep, and so I was pointing that out to Jacks, who used that line of reasoning. As far as removing the tag - it's a conflict of interest for me to close my own nomination. Besides this article has no sources, is a pure list, original research, etc. Another admin will have to close because I'm not convinced that it needs to be withdrawn. Not a single KEEP vote here has cited policy and how that policy was satisfied. the_undertow ^talk 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No policy has to be cited, for it to be kept, and references has been added to prove it isn't original research. Also I will point out on the How to Keep It states nothing about having to bring up a policy as a reason to keep, but it does state these reasons "Articles may survive the deletion process for several reasons: A consensus of editors believe the article is encyclopedic. The article improves to encyclopedic standards while the discussion is underway. No consensus emerges, in which case the article stays." Did you notice the last one? Aladdin Zane 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, "ho harm" was just my bad choice of words, not my rationale for keeping. I personally see no value in such a listing, but realize others do. Jacksinterweb 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim&Merge or Delete While Burt Reynolds is indeed a notable actor, most of his TV appearances are not notable, especially when about half of the TV shows didn't even have anough popular impact to spawn a wiki article. Let imdb list his appearances in minutiae and provide a link there in the main article. Just the most important TV appearances should be mentioned in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Parry (engineer)[edit]

Completely orphaned article with no indication of notability. Can't find any references via google or news searches (lots of "John Parry"s so also alternated various phrases from the article, but came up with nothing). Sesameball^Talk 08:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. This article only states how he climbed the ladder of the organization he worked for. --Blanchardb 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TGreenburgPR 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any references via searches either Mr pand 13:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Epbr123 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7, band with no assertion of notability, just a few self-releases and a Myspace page. --Stormie 08:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elysia (band)[edit]

Non-notable group that fails WP:MUSIC. No sources provided. GlassCobra 08:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:

Note to closing admin: If this AfD results in a delete vote, please remove all references in articles like Elysia and so on. GlassCobra 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outerweb[edit]

"As of early 2007, OuterWeb has shut down because of lack of user interest and support." Non-notable irc network. I could have speedied it, but it's been around for some two years. 679 ghits. MER-C 07:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable. The article even states that it was a lack of notability that killed the network. --Blanchardb 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, definitely not notable. jj137 (Talk) 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above comments Think outside the box 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creekside Elementary School[edit]

Speedy delete as empty. No attempt to assert notability. If kept, this space needs to be a dab page and the article content moved. Vegaswikian 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty obviously nn. I wouldn't recommend keeping the space, either, as I find it unlikely that any Creekside Elementary School clears the notability bar. --Hyperbole 07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't seem to be empty any more. GlassCobra 08:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not empty, but still not notable. Lordjeff06 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, not very much content. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.... this belongs as a note on the page of School District 36 Surrey, which it is. No other notability, just like all the other schools on there that someone decided needed to have their own pages for no reason. Epthorn 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, does anyone know of a tool one can use to make the deletion process a little quicker? There are a number of similar schools on that page, School District 36 Surrey, and all of them are exactly like this article- lacking in notability and substance.Epthorn 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to delete several schools under WP:CSD A7 but one administrator declined. Schools have been deleted at CSD in the past. So that is the easier way. However it depends on the administrator who sees the request. They can choose to delete, remove the tag, change it to a merge, skip over the request for someone else to look at, send it to prod or any number of other options. Generally if there are only one or two, merging is a good choice leaving the name as a redirect. However in this case the was a template pointing here which probably needs to also be deleted after the red links appear. And no, it is not the one for the BC schools it is another, that's the reason to the DAB page comment. Is there a BC template that may also need looking into? Vegaswikian 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability so it fails WP:N, article is just 1 sentence (stating where the school is at). Make a note on the article for the school district. TJ Spyke 19:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Trail Elementary School[edit]

Speedy delete as empty. No attempt to assert notability. Vegaswikian 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. (Have you considered prod'ing some of these unambiguously nn schools instead of AfD'ing them? It could save a little time on everybody's part...) --Hyperbole 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frequently the prod gets removed and they wind up here anyway. The other option is a merge/redirect. However in this case, there is a template that needs to be deleted after the articles are gone and the redirects would leave blue links. Vegaswikian 07:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools ought to be inherently notable. I see no reason to delete this. GlassCobra 08:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because you think they ought to be "inherently notable", that doesn't necessarily mean they are and always will be, because of the countless number of middle and elementary schools in the nation. Plus, if it fails WP:N, that's reason enough for me.--WaltCip 14:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable school. Bobby1011 07:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs on Minutes to Midnight[edit]

There's already an article for the album (Minutes to Midnight (album)), which has a list of the songs on the album, and many of the songs seem to have their own articles as well. This article is quite redundant. ArglebargleIV 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thoroughly redundant, and the parts that aren't are clear OR. --Hyperbole 07:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this page should be merged with the Minutes to Midnight. Though that would make that page too cluttered. I made this page because I thought all the songs deserved a page, the editors don't agree with me though. This page was something I thought would be an answer to everything. It's only one page and it covers all the songs that don't have their own page. The ones that DO have their own page are linked instead of covering them on that page. With this page all the songs can have coverage but no need to make so many pages for songs that don't deserve them. This page is a bit underdeveloped, but I don't have that much experience with editing Wikipedia. I did what I could and maybe someone else can expand it. The other albums don't have a page like this, but they can be given one.

--DaFazzle 18:30, 4 November 2007 (my local time)

Delete. That which isn't redundant is original research. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant per nom. Otto4711 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, folding anything salvageable into the main album article. tomasz. 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Operations Forces Mafia[edit]

This article is made out of large load of original research. Also the name seems to be a neologism. Lack of references, but the creator deliberately put links from wikipedia or websites that don't contain the SOF Mafia to make the article looks well put together. Chris! _ct 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a pile of OR to me, too - and Google returns only 17 unique hits for "SOF Mafia" (and a whopping zero for "Special Operations Forces Mafia"). --Hyperbole 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy 09:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, appears to be a recycling of someone's comparison of several books, difficult to read, and no little clue from the article about why this is relevant. All I can gather is that there is a clique within Special Ops that some describe as its "mafia". Opening sentence isn't even a sentence: "SOF Mafia where SOF means [US] Special Operations Forces which include all type assets under control of the Department of Defense, and specifically the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD/SOLIC) [under the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)], and the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM, [1]), but also includes specialized resources belonging to other Executive activities." Sorry, too sophisticated for us Wikipedians. Mandsford 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a lengthy justification on the article's Talk page which seems to boil down to an admission that the article is OR. andy 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, non-notable DoD internal politics.ALR 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Animals (comic)[edit]

Non-Notable publication. Was not widely released and was only a 4 issue comic released in 1997. Search on Altavista, Google and Yahoo only turns up hits results for the now defunct WCW wrestling team Filthy Animals and less then 10 results for the comic book. Feldman's Ghost 06:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article makes no assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 07:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and in agreement with Hyperbole no assertion of notability. Simon Bar Sinister 07:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. No coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, no assertion of notability, this is just another four issue furry porn (or 'poon') comic among the millions that (shouldn't) exist (but do.) - ∅ (∅), 13:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant publication which WAS widely available and advertised. I also feel that this article is being picked on by conservative Wikipedia users who are anti-pornography. Agesthird 01:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)— Agesthird (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't assert notability. If someone feels strongly about this sandbox it and work on it and then let the webcomic work group know and we'll have a look at it and see if it shapes up. (Emperor 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Liddell et al[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article has not managed to establish notability since the last 'No Consensus' decision. Mais oui! 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Mais oui! 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the is no interest being taken by secondary sources, because, well, there is no interest. Insignificant. Website hosted by geosites rather says it all. -Doc^g 09:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content is certainly in need of radical pruning and a decent reference or two would not go amiss. However, by the relatively inclusive standards of Wikipedia I think that the subject matter may merit continued inclusion. My advice to those wishing its continued existence would be to cut the size down to 25% of the existing content at most. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 11:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also NEED independent attestation to its significance. Give me some sources showing a media profile, independent review, etc and I think again. Without that, this can't survive, no matter how pruned.--Doc^g 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The content is certainly in need of radical pruning" - just a liddle bit. --MacRusgail 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no grounds for an assertion of notability, I don't think "first family genealogy group of any type to be enrolled in The Genographic Project" cuts the encyclopedic notability mustard. Pete.Hurd 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastview Middle School[edit]

Non notable middle school. Unless you consider a list of teachers as notable. Vegaswikian 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trim obvious junk, but the school is should be inherently notable. GlassCobra 08:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to any guidline or policy on Wikipedia, that is just your opinion. TJ Spyke 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <edit conflict>Where does it say that middle schools are 'inherently notable'? Vegaswikian 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, sorry. Making that bit clearer. GlassCobra 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability (a speedy deletion candidate) and reads like a directory. So it can be delete per WP:N or WP:NOT, take your pick. TJ Spyke 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as schools are not inherently notable and this is not the place to discuss that point. Try WP:SCHOOL and follow the links to whatever the current proposal is. As for this school is does not seem to distinguish itself. Bobby1011 07:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lamb, while being indeed a local politician, is also a pioneer in Historic Preservation methodology, technique and technology, has been President and a Founding Board member of the Society of Organic Architects a international membership and advocacy group of Architects and Designers that has helped pass green building legislation in several contries, and is presently involved in numerous not for profit corporation efforts to bring industry to Liberia.

He is hardly just a local insignificant politician.Jagallo (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven S. Lamb[edit]

Non notable local politician. fails WP:BIO Secretlondon 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The last sentence says it all Mr. Lamb is presently self employed as a residential designer, artist and coffee roaster. On 8 June 2007 Mr. Lamb was elected to his ninth term on the Altadena Town Council.Balloonman 06:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. --Hyperbole 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has not held a major office, no significant press coverage. shoeofdeath 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 --JForget 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Demitri[edit]

This will be a group nomination of a walled garden surrounding the subject of this article, Vincent Demitri. Mr. Demitri's article presents little in the way of notability to start with. Google searches for his book get zero hits; he himself gets 19 hits; his band Visara, searched as '"Visara" band', gets two hits... essentially, there are zero reliable sources outside of the Myspace refs given. Mr. Demitri himself fails WP:BIO, and his bands both fail WP:MUSIC, in my opinion. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 06:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Are you seriously considering deleting this? Obviously you haven't heard his music, seen his visual workings, or anything related because if you did you'd understand the importance he has as an artist in this culturally-deprived world despite being relatively unknown; I say "relatively" unknown because if you speak to any gallery owner on the west coast the name is very familiar not to mention with the colleges mentioned in the bio about him although he isn't "mainstream" as other multi-media artists that may come to your mind are. The novel is a bitch to find but DOES exist (I know because I own a hardbound copy), and (to bring up the west coast again) Visara is more than "little-known" in the Electro-Industrial scene, as well as the album Ember Iris. Rethink your motioning for deletion, just because you haven't heard of Vincent Demitri, Tony Fox, doesn't mean the rest of the world hasn't. Regardless of what you've found in your so-called "searching" the fact remains that Demitri is a brilliant painter, photographer, musician, and film director. I know this personally because I was a live technician on the Ember Iris tour in 2005 and WAS THERE to learn much about this character. You need to dig a bit deeper if you want to discredit Demitri, such as by calling said universities or even the clubs listed on the Visara page, although that would only due the opposite of what you're trying to do by verifying what you claim doesn't exist. Mixedinternal 07:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedinternal (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Mixedinternal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue here is a complete and utter lack of reliable sources to prove anything you have posted in these articles. Without reliable sources, we cannot verify any of the claims, and all content here must be verifiable. If you have reliable, non-trivial references to back up anything that is in the article, then please bring it forward for consideration. He himself must meet WP:BIO. The bands must meet WP:MUSIC. If you can do something to prove that he does, please do. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Demitri clearly fails WP:BIO. Even page author admits Demitri is "relatively unknown" - i.e., non-notable by Wikipedia standards. --Hyperbole 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Hyperbole. Clear lack of notability. GlassCobra 08:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, delete the pages if you want; you're just going to see them again in the middle of 2008 when The Stoic Club releases Redwomb and all these pages are put back up again. Congrats on just wasting time, but for the record the Visara MySpace page has a logged (and visible to all) 100,000 + views, and The Stoic Club already has over 15,000 views despite being announced in October of 2007. Apparently even though the three or so admins for Wikipedia can't appreciate Demitri's works plenty of other people can. Mixedinternal 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow, toot your own horn much? It's barely a big deal to undelete an article on the offchance it does become popular. (By the way, if Mixedinternal isn't Demitri himself, I'll eat my hat.) JuJube 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:BIO, etc. -RiverHockey 19:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JuJube, if you can read you would've already seen that I'm a stage technician by trade and worked with Visara in 2004, something already stated--regardless, delete it if you will, the guidelines are pretty strict on what is Wiki-able and as someone who's semi-successful (underground) and not prominently successful he just doesn't fit those guidelines after all. Like I said, give him half a year and the pages will have to be put back up. Mixedinternal 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, at that time, he's got multiple, non-trivial reliable sources that back up the claims in the articles and otherwise meets the various guidelines for musicians and bands, then that's fine. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; future possibilities of notability aren't good reasoning for an article either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said, I just don't believe you. JuJube 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above--non-notable. JNW 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's clear some things up. I am Vincent Demitri, Mixedinternal is a bothersome character with whom I have the misfortune of living in the same community of. I'll be honest, I am NOT famous, just another artist, so personally I don't feel myself reputable enough for a Wiki entry. I was informed that my Wikipedia page was being deleted and with me not ever creating one I was a bit confused; when it was cleared up that the entry was about ME and I gave no authorization for it to be created in the first place (I would prefer my privacy) I not only became irate, I personally decided to join this "debate." Mixedinternal, stop the bullshit and leave your fangirlism out of this, I DO NOT want an entry about me--please go as far as to delete all information related to myself, Visara, and The Stoic Club unless they fit the Wikipedia guidelines to a tee for the sake of this website's rules and the sake of my privacy. Wikipedia, please delete this entry, and if you can let's keep it this way. I am just another shut-in now, and I want my life to be as is in private unless I say so...at this time, I do not say so. Final note: all the the information about myself and my music was true, but as it does stand unverified it isn't relevant, but more to-the-point is that there are huge gaps of my own personal life left untouched. It's not like I was born, there was light, and then there was art. I actually DO things other than art, but I digress. Delete all these pages (the one about me, Visara, TSC), please, and when you can cite some sources then you can do as you wish on Wikipedia. I've done a good job at remaining relatively unknown on purpose, can we please keep it that way? Emberiris 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC) — Emberiris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ho[edit]

Contested PROD; in the PROD summary, I wrote that the subject's main claims to notability seem to be that he entered college at a young age and is now a computer science professor. WP:PROF is not satisfied. Another editor added some material about ITK-SNAP, a software project he was involved with, in an attempt to demonstrate notability, but the notability of that project is also in question. Delete. SparsityProblem 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:PROF. A general standard of notability on Wikipedia is "more notable than the average college professor." This guy, to all appearances, is pretty much an average college professor. --Hyperbole 06:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 13 to enroll at college is impressive, but not unheard of. Now, if he were the youngest person to ever attend Harvard or something... that might be noteworthy.Balloonman 06:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has a good publication record for an assistant professor, according to Google scholar. But I think someone at that level has to do something special to pass WP:PROF, not just be well on the way to a successful academic career. The early entrance to college thing is interesting but not really noteworthy enough to stand on its own. —David Eppstein 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 16:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in SpongeBob SquarePants[edit]

Same reasoning as here. Another trivial list with no real-world notability. Crazy Legs KC 06:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. I don't think there's anything wrong with having this article, given that SpongeBob SquarePants is obviously notable and Wikipedia is not paper, but the article as it stands is a giant pile of OR. 9,000 bytes and one reference? If it doesn't get fixed very soon, it needs to be scrapped. --Hyperbole 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix immediately and thoroughly or just delete. Doczilla 08:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge It's part of a cluster of articles about SpongeBob SquarePants which is highly notable and so has so has space/format issues in covering its material, per the sub-article concept in WP:FICT which is still being hashed out. Colonel Warden 09:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More fun to write than it is to read, I can't see how it can be merged without a lot of editing. This one has the "must have done a lot of work" illusion because of the use of tables, but it's really the case of a person trying to write a detailed description of every place he/she has seen in the TV show. It's a masterpiece, save it to your computer, share it with your friends... just don't put it on Wikipedia. Mandsford 14:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see this previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places beyond Bikini Bottom. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Originally-researched in-universe non-notable fancruft. Notability of the show does not claim notability over all its tiny details. •97198 talk 11:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might have said merge but not surte where it would go and it is unsourced. Seems like all the Sponge Bob articles are a mess. Even the template is a mess. Ridernyc 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there's an article at Elgin Area School District U46. W.marsh 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Elementary School (Elgin, Illinois)[edit]

Non notable elementary school. Vegaswikian 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - makes no claim of notability. Elementary schools are generally considered nn. --Hyperbole 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eventhough the school guidelines were never accepted, this one would have failed them all.Balloonman 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail WP:N. cant wait til they make all those other articles in that template o_0 MatthewYeager 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools ought to be inherently notable. I see no reason why this should be deleted. GlassCobra 08:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that schools are not inherently notable and have to pass WP:N just like any other article. TJ Spyke 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is notable. I will add to the article as time permits. Propol 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What it the article asserts notability? If it does not, it is not notable. Vegaswikian 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of notability (WP:N). TJ Spyke 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school This is a Secret ^account 02:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Path Middle School[edit]

Non notable school. Vegaswikian 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim to notability. Middle schools are generally nn. --Hyperbole 06:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eventhough the school guidelines were never accepted, this one would have failed them all.Balloonman 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of notability. TJ Spyke 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Qst 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Geller[edit]

I think this is an advertisement, I removed a section "Experts In Talk Radio Worldwide"[28] from the Talk radio page and noticed this lonely page Ewlyahoocom 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this page has significant WP:COI problems and reads like an advertisement. That needs to be fixed. But I'm also pretty sure that Geller is an adequately notable figure in radio to merit an article. I'll make a quick run through it and try to clean up the POV language. --Hyperbole 06:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definately needs to be cleaned up and cited, but a quick web search will show that she is in fact a major voice in the radio industry.Balloonman 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Balloonman. jj137 (Talk) 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also note that (prior to the last day or two) this article pretty much only had one editor, and that one editor pretty much only ever edited this one article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerie_Geller&action=history and Special:Contributions/Ritarichmedia. Ewlyahoocom 21:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when I first started working here, I too only edited one or two articles. This is not a criteria for deletion.Balloonman 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable--Zingostar 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor format and writing are no reason to delete a notable topic --Kevin Murray 00:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night Fever (concept)[edit]

This is a completely unsourced article about radio stations playing disco music (and other genres) at night. It was translated from an article in the French Wikipedia which seems to be weakly sourced at best. I submitted the article for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources reads like or... if this is kept, the long list of "hits" has to go.Balloonman 06:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be OR. Googling "Night Fever" turns up pretty much nothing except a Bee Gees song by that name (and many references to Saturday Night Fever). There is some scant evidence that "Night Fever" means something different in France, but nothing reliable enough to convince me that the concept is notable. --Hyperbole 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The "Night Fever" concept is a reality in France and in Florida so shoe do a big error if you delate it. I'll do all what is possible to reformulate the miscomprehensible part of the article.Palmer73

KEEP What is the problem with this article ? Hyperbole Google is not a reference for knowledge. Everybody knows RFM NIGHT FEVER. .Discoloft--Discoloft 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "everybody knows it," you'd really think someone would have talked about it on the Internet, and Google would have found it. If non-Internet sources exist, well, you're going to have to provide them if you really want to argue that this phenomenon is notable. --Hyperbole 01:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if this is kept, the long list of "hits" has to go" . im agree with you Balloonman .Discoloft --Discoloft 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: In order to keep this, it needs to be rewritten from scratch. Night Fever seems to be some sort of promotion service/brand, like Hed Kandi used to be, which is not necessarily unencyclopedic or non-notable, but the article as written is not about that. --Pc13 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable references and I can't see any ones existing. Bobby1011 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references have been added by Palmer73. Discoloft --Discoloft 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: How are the lyrics to "Get Down (Saturday Night)" a reference? Only one of the six references seems to mention the "Night Fever" promotion, and the article itself doesn't mention the company behind the marketing event, it makes it seem that "Night Fever" is a spontaneous cultural movement. In addition, the "references" have been sprinkled throughout the article, without taking into account the claims in need of citation. --Pc13 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lyrics web sites are not references. Search results from an online CD store are not references. This is utterly ridiculous. Bobby1011 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Holloway[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines. This should probably be a redirect to God Didn't Give Me a Week's Notice, but I'd like the content to be deleted first, since it contains WP:BLP concerns. Chick Bowen 05:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Although, I am not entirely opposed to keeping the article either... she is notable, via her being the subject of a documentary... but only marginally soBalloonman 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Units[edit]

Deletion nomination This is a game guide for Starcraft. Should not be here per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pure game guide, and article doesn't indicate intention to be more than that.--Sesameball^Talk 05:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a guideBalloonman 07:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. GlassCobra 08:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Strong Delete, again per WP:NOT#GUIDE. L337 kybldmstr 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. 132.205.99.122 20:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a game guide -- Whpq 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't be made significantly useful for our coverage of Starcraft. --Kizor 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mafraja[edit]

No sources given in the article. A quick google search [29] yields nothing to indicate any notoriety meshach 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable, unreferenced article that doesn't show potential to being encyclopedic. Icestorm815 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NNBalloonman 07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no chance of establishing notability per WP:N. Doctorfluffy 06:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be spam and likely hoax, since company founder is supposed to have lived 95 years after founding company. Edward321 03:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artcore gallery[edit]

Notability is difficult to ascertain. No WP:RS that I can find. G-hits for "Artcore Gallery" + Toronto = 577 but none appear to be significant secondary sources. I'm not sure what level is "notable" for a gallery. Pigman^what?/trail 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is it too naive to take the view that because the author is user:Artcore Toronto then it must be spam? -- RHaworth 06:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't assert its notability. There are quite a few Google hits for "Artcore Gallery," but it appears there are several galleries with this name in several countries. And even if it is notable, there are such major WP:COI problems that we should probably start over. --Hyperbole 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article reads as the gallery's pamplet.Balloonman 07:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant delete. I say hesitant only because I'm not so sure what criteria we should apply to art galleries. I don't think I can see this meeting them, though, whatever they are. Feel free to prove me wrong. (P.S. I was sure this was going to be copyvio, but apparently it is, at least, not copied from anything on the internet. I have the sneaking suspicion that it may actually already exist as a print source, though.) - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the exact same thing... it really does read as something already in print somewhere, but I couldn't find anything.Balloonman 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam - the entire article reads like a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Craig[edit]

Procedural nomination. It was previously tagged CSD, but does assert some notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amateur athlete who has competed at the NCAA level. Google is perhaps misleading as her name isn't unusual, but a search returns over two million results, and the first page at least are relevant to Craig. I see no reason for deletion. faithless (^speak) 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work and seems to have been created primarily on the basis of her husband's recent death, but note as sources [30] [31] just from the first google search page based on her name. Seems to be ample coverage out there. --Sesameball^Talk 04:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. She is the women's collegiate 10,000-meter recordholder:

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/5/3/stanfordsCraigSetsCollegiaterecordIn10000Meters Ryoung122 04:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Collegiate records are fine, but that doesn't make the holder noteworthy. Competing in college sports is generally not considered enough to get an article. But she does appear to have other articles written about her.Balloonman 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable athlete. Needs to be expanded. - Dougie WII 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - worthwhile athlete. Guroadrunner 13:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the one who fist nominated the article for SD. Owning an NCAA record doesn't automatically make you notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and this article seems prompted merely by the fact she is married to someone in the news who died. If anything, just redirect to Ryan Shay. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a blowout case, but she seems to be notable enough for inclusion. @ ZimZalaBim: the fact that she's related to someone notable (who died) doesn't raise the bar for her. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (barely) notable athlete ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete "Effie White (character)"; Redirect all the others to Dreamgirls. Prodego ^talk 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effie White (character)[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

All are Dreamgirls characters. Articles entirely made up of original research in-universe material; articles for Effie White and Deena Jones were already merged through an earlier AFD (the author who created these articles should have seen or realized this and known better). Same reasoning still applies: any and all information about characters is already present in either the article for the Broadway musical or the feature film adaptation. And try though anyone might, you're not going to be able to write full, well referenced articles for the characters themselves: there's not much information you could offer.

I say to delete Effie White (character) and Deena Jones Taylor (and delete its redirect, Deena Jones (character)), as they are not logical search terms, but redirect James "Thunder" Early, C.C. White, and Michelle Morris to Dreamgirls (not Dreamgirls (film)) FuriousFreddy 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything with a "(character)" qualifier as an implausible search term, and redirect everything else to Dreamgirls (the broadway show) as plausible search terms. -- saberwyn 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a big, unqualified "so-what". JuJube 06:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. Ridernyc 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing added to article. Another non-admin close. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous non-admin closure (as speedy keep) overturned. Please let this go through the normal process, this is nowhere near a legitimate WP:SNOW closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was closed prematurely as a snowball... but that doesn't meant that it still won't snowball...Balloonman 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the close, but non-admins shouldn't be closing any debates with delete votes as "speedy", regardless of how many sources have been added. Non-admins should generally steer clear of all but the simplest closures. Deiz talk 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jones (author)[edit]

Appears to be unknown outwith professional poker. Has written one book of unknown significance, article supported by 2 niche poker web sources. Prod contested as "ludicrous" by a user who edits solely on poker and could spend more time reading up on WP:BIO. Deiz talk 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that enough secondary sources should be out there, even if they are poker-oriented sources. His book is widely considered the reference introductory guide to low-limit poker, he's been a featured magazine columnist, and he was the poker manager (maybe still is) for pokerstars. Think we just need to dig deeper. --Sesameball^Talk 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I would still like to see the sources, or evidence the book is that popular. I haven't seen anything that really satisfies WP:BIO. Deiz talk 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then the appropriate thing to do would have been to discuss on the talk page for the article, not nominate the article for deletion. Rray 04:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frivilous, absurd nomination. The guy wrote one of the best selling books in the poker niche, and was responsible for running a two BILLION dollar business. Obviously meets WP:BIO. Instead of making frivilous nominations, nomiator should have had the courtesy to search google first to see the literally 125,000 plus search mentions of this person. 2005 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - Not only is this an absurd nomination, but the nominator's personal attack of another editor here is entirely inappropriate, distasteful, and out-of-place. Rray 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly meets WP:N, Very well know inside poker community, for more about Lee Jone for thise who don't know of him. see:[32] [33] [34]▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete, unless better sources establishing notability outside the narrow commercial circles of this person's online industry are found. At this point, I'm not convinced that the coverage in dedicated commercial poker sites constitutes reliable sourcing of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 2 references from Cardplayer. Saying that this doesn't count as a reliable source because it's a dedicated commercial poker site is like saying an article about a football player in Sports Illustrated doesn't count because Sports Illustrated is a dedicated sports website. Rray 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Sunrise doesn't realize that Cardplayer magazine is one of the most respected sources on the subject of Poker in the country. It has been around for almost 20 years. The other two sources, that were in the article at the time, are also somewhat credible. They may be on cites dedicated to poker, but that doesn't mean that they don't have validity. A better comparison would be to compare them to cites such as political watchdogs/think tanks/etc. One may wish for a more objective cite than Move-On.Org, but that doesn't mean that moveon.org doesn't meet the criteria for reliability. One may wish for a better source than Pokerpages or poker source, but that doesn't mean that those two sources aren't credible/reliable.Balloonman 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO. One line is: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." We do have guidelines for these matters for good reason. The views in pottery magazines matter about potters. the views in baseball magazines matter about baseball players. The views in autoracing magazines matter about auto racers, even if you or the rest of us could not care less. The guideline exists in part to prevent nominations like this where an article is attacked because the person is unknown or not important to the nominator. In this case the person meets every aspect of WP:BIO creative professionals easily, even if someone in Timbuktu unfamiliar with poker does not know him. He has notability in one of the world's niches, and he meets the guideline for a biography article. 2005 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that I added two mentions of him in the New York Times to the article. The sourcing remains narrow, but his book appears very popular (sales rank at amazon.com 6,243, and 133 reader reviews) and this is enough for me to keep the article. His leaving pokerstars.com might be due to worries about the legal future of online poker in the US, but I couldn't find any reliable sources for that interesting suggestion. EdJohnston 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Published author of a book is in it's 3rd edition first released in 1994, second 2000, third 2005. Lee managed the Pokerstars card room leading it to become the industry leader. extremely well known in the poker community. -Pparazorback 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep His book is considered the bible of low limit poker. Virtually every big poker name that has emerged over the past decade cites his book as the book for low limit hold'em. While the person who originally closed this as Snowball did so a little too early, I think this is a case where a snowball should be considered.Balloonman 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is obvious. He is (1) a widely cited published author, (2) a regular columnist for the primary magazine about poker,(3) the (now former) manager of one of the largest online poker rooms (a VERY large business), (4) a future television commentator, and (5) an inventor of an interesting poker strategic system (SAGE). I think each of these is sufficient for notability individually, and all together make this easy. There are reliable sources indicating he is each of these. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD discussion seems to be better-referenced than the article itself. From your comment I learn that he has a regular column, but I don't see that mentioned in the article. I also hear that online poker rooms are a very large business but I don't see that quantified anywhere in the article. The existence of SAGE is noted in the NYT (patting myself on the back for finding the reference), but what SAGE actually does is not explained in the article. I think the commenters to this AfD have all kinds of information that is going to waste if it only stays here in the AfD debate, and doesn't get actually put in the article. EdJohnston 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Use your energies to reference the article, then opine "keep, per sufficient sourcing added to article". Blast me all you want for nominating it, but the article did not demonstrate the notability required on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deiz - while uncited, 4 of the five things I mentioned were in the article when you prod-ed it. Ed - All of the things I mentioned are cited in the article. Besides it's much easier to tell you what I know than find appropriate citation and add it to the article. Either way, I don't think it's not particularly productive to criticize people for not donating more time. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it did demonstrate notability, so lets not pretend it did not. It did not have citations showing where he was a book and magazine author, but it stated he was. It did have an external link about him running the game operation of a multibillion dollar business, though it wasn't in proper reference format. Notability was plainly obvious, so denying that is just silly. Of course it could have had more citations, but an encouragement of that is not to do a frivilous afd. Simply put a sources tag on the article, or improve it yourself. In this case it would be easy to do because the volume of information available is mountainous. The argument other people should do it is just silly, but we do have a way to show good faith by respectfully saying an article needs sources. I hope you will do that in the future. 2005 07:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple steps that could have and should have been taken to clean up the article before nominating it for deletion. There are tags that can be added to articles to say that notability isn't demonstrated, that references aren't there at all, that references are there but don't take the form of inline citations...there's even a talk page where you can ask about the notability of the subject of the article. The point is that AfD isn't (or shouldn't be) a tool to force other editors to clean up an article you think needs cleaning up. The AfD process is a tool to delete articles that should be deleted. Rray 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Rray. Next time you (I appreciate it wasn't you in this case, just a general "you") unprod an unsourced article, don't describe the prod as "ludicrous". Do add some sources. Then we don't end up at AfD, and you don't have to go on about maintenance tags, talk pages and generally quote wikiphilosophy to people who know it oh-so-well... Deiz talk 09:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per practically everyone here. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'zine garage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D'zine garage

Advertisement and possibly a case of conflict of interest. Shyamal 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. This is obviously an advertisement. Chris! _ct 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely delete I love the list of accomplishments at the end...Balloonman 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Advertising. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per CSD - (ad) Rudget _{Contributions} 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 having no coherent ideas or useful encyclopedic content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Module 6 Assignment 1[edit]

This page is a set of brief answers to homework questions, not an encyclopedia article. John254 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 in relation to specific article title and repeated encyclopedia content within the article. BigBlueFish 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to the school district's article. The school itself is non-notable, and there's no content worth keeping, but there's no reason to not point users somewhere on the (vast) outside chance they search for the school. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briarwood Elementary School (Issaquah, Washington)[edit]

Non-notable. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn school. --Hyperbole 07:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with Issaquah School District. --Polaron | Talk 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperbole (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm of the opinion that schools are inherently notable. GlassCobra 08:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you expand on that position? - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's not all that much more to say. Some believe that schools are inherently notable and worth having an article about, some do not. According to WP:OUTCOMES, discussions have schools often are unable to achieve consensus. GlassCobra 14:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So in the case of any non-notable school, the default result should always be "no consensus"?--WaltCip 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Definitely not. The default result should be Keep, because schools are inherently notable. :) GlassCobra 15:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No references, no reliable sources, nothing to establish its notability, not even a single secondary source citation.--WaltCip 15:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Issaquah School District. At current, schools aren't inherently notable under Wikipedia guidelines (although individual episodes of SpongeBob are--go figure!). But it's a policy that I hope NEVER changes, not because I'm against schools, but because I think the school articles come about as the result of a teacher introducing her/his students to Wikipedia. Thus, the class puts together an article, the students edit it, it's there for all the world to see for awhile, it's saved as part of the school's records... and then it gets deleted . It makes more sense to do that than for the students to play with an existing article, as demonstrated by the Charles Lindbergh page

This one was written in the 2006-07 school year and probably forgotten about. Another class will create a temporary Wikipedia article about Apollo Elementary someday. Mandsford 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Merge like the above user stated. Nothin notable about this school. TJ Spyke 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Keep opinion appears to be based on WP:ILIKEIT. Vegaswikian 07:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://www.rumimaki.com/. Ginkgo100^talk 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi maki[edit]

Several reasons: first, blatant copyvio - it is word-for-word the text located at www.rumimaki.com, in the "about" section (although the website had "exceeded its data transfer limit" and was unavailable the last time I clicked on it.) Second, is probably non-notable. The history as detailed in the article (and website) attempts to make some connection with ancient martial practices of Peru, but equivocates regarding any direct historical connections. I think if you read between the lines you have Juan Ramon using the term "rumi maki," which apparently has some connection to a Peruvian mythical figure but not directly to any martial arts practice, to apply to his own history of martial training (we can give him the benefit of the doubt that his training involved historical Peruvian martial arts) and founding a new school or style. Due to lack of reliable references, recent creation, and what appears to be a single school, I think this is non-notable. Bradford44 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Speedy Delete db-copyvio, so tagged. JuJube 02:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Guitar Hero games[edit]

Article duplicates 4 other lists (specific game song lists) - due to amount of vandalism on individual pages, having an accumulation page doubles the work of tracking such vandalism. Discussion to merge into single article suggests no consensus to do such. MASEM 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated songs. Crazysuit 05:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of redundancy. I have no problem with lists of Guitar Hero songs, but we shouldn't have a list for each individual game and then a list for the whole series. Sure, Wikipedia is not paper, but as Masem points out, duplicating an article doubles the amount of effort the community has to spend on maintenance. --Hyperbole 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list does not need its own separate article. Doczilla 08:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of being completely redundant. I can theoretically see this being a disambig to the other pages, but that might not be necessary. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Lists are fine, but lists of lists = a Bad Idea. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny autistic[edit]

No reliable sources provided and no reliable sources found. The only references to this neologism are Wiki mirrors. Prod deleted, neologism only present on Wiki mirrors and via navigational template links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a couple of blog/forum hits for this and for "shiny aspie" but nothing substantial. Even if there were it could just be mentioned in the autism article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references to support that this term has received any particular recognition by the medical profession. WjBscribe 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Nothing to this to speak of. Pigman^what?/trail 05:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Chris! _ct 06:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 websites total had this term,... one was a wiki mirror the other two were unrelated.Balloonman 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 08:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shiny autistics are claimed to be high functioning examples held up for public admiration (Temple Grandin, anyone?) But the term does not seem to be in general use. Edison 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef, no reliable source offered. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Autism in case it becomes notable in the near future. Bearian'sBooties 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge into the language section of Autistic culture.--Fenke 09:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source backing its addition to that article, which btw, is largely an uncited essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something that would be published in peer reviewed journals ... what sources are normally used for the various types - or area's - of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenke (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This type of article does not require a peer-reviewed source to establish notability; Google verifies that there is *no* reliable source using the term other than a couple of blog/forum mentions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. GRBerry 12:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis SquarePantis[edit]

This is an article about a future episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. I am appalled by the lack of context. The "plot summary" is two sentences. The trivia section is longer than the plot summary. There are no less than ~~four~~ ~~five~~ ~~six~~ ~~seven~~ eight templates on the page, including AfD and speedy. Basically, I propose to delete this article because it is nothing but trivia. It can be re-created when the episode airs, if ever. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - article's only non-trivia content is a copyvio from [tv.com]. Also note that there is a Wii game by this name, so the page should probably ultimately be a disambiguation page. --Hyperbole 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. GlassCobra 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as such. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Curran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Disputed Prod by IP who removed it twice without explanation and no changes made so the issue moves to AFD. Prod was issued for notability reasons - not meeting the criterias. I remain neutral on this case about a fictional character in the Forest Gump movie, though maybe a merge or something can be madeJForget 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article offers nothing more than plot summary, which is not what Wikipedia is for. There's been little to nothing said about the character in secondary sources independent of the film. The character isn't notable enough to have her own article. --Hnsampat 01:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FICT. No sources indicate notability beyond the film itself. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suspect it could be made into a viable article but as it stands it doesn't argue very strongly for itself. However, many ghits for jenny forrest that are not merely lists, and some news hits on jenny forrest gump like [35], [36], [37]. JJL 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because she's a character in the highly notable film Forrest Gump. However, that does not mean that she is notable on her own. --Hnsampat 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, each of those news articles listed only mentions Jenny in passing. None of them are about Jenny. Characters like Dirty Harry, Darth Vader, and Tony Soprano all have separate articles because they've eached received significant coverage in secondary sources. Jenny from Forrest Gump has received no such coverage and hence should not have her own article. --Hnsampat 12:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge possibly to Forrest Gump or an article about characters in Forrest Gump. I agree that the character in not notable individually, but since the film is notable, I think we should merge. Chris! _ct 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jenny is a major enough of a character in the book/film that she can hold her own article.Balloonman 07:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character in an exceedingly notable film. GlassCobra 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. The character must be notable on her own, regardless of how important her role is in the film. Furthermore, there is nothing in this article besides plot summary and there is nothing that can be added, as there has been no overage of the character in secondary sources independent of the film. --Hnsampat 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as original CSD nominator. Adds nothing notable, only regurgetates the plot again. Plot elements might be mergable into the film article, which suffers from too short a plot as is. As a side note, all other character articles except the one for Forest himself are currently up for PROD and so far this is the only one to be contested. All were nominated for CSD after discussion in the Wikipedia Film Project where the consensus seemed to be that only Forrest's article was notable enough to stand on its own. Collectonian 09:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article Forest Gump if independant reliable sources can't be found. The character isn't notable enough by itself to have its own article. AngelOfSadness talk 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. The film and book are notable, this character isn't. Crazysuit 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 06:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would I be out of place in pointing out that the above IP user has added that same comment verbatim to over 50 AfD discussions today? --Hnsampat 21:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably merge but it definitely needs referencing if it is kept.Red Fiona 18:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incognition[edit]

Likely neologism, probably unverifiable as a google search turns up LITERALLY no hits at all (the search to incognition alone turns up lots of false hits, and none gives this definition. There MAY be print references to this, but right now this looks like possible self-promotion of a single person's theories, and probably non-notable and unverifiable. Relevent guidelines WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources present to assert the existence of a "notion" of incognition, not just a merely dictionary definition. Baristarim 06:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be a hoax since no sources indicate its existence. Chris! _ct 06:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoaxBalloonman 07:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn unsourced neologism or hoax. Doczilla 08:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AoK Genres[edit]

Cruft, unnecessary article, much more appropriate at GenieWiki, so I've already transferred it there [38]. — H ₂O — 00:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that it has found its rightful place, more reason for not needing it here. ♠TomasBat 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft---DeleteBalloonman 07:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally pleased with it being moved (I made it) but it's ok.WOC_Perfect
AoK Genres is an article linked to Deletion. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like someone copied the table of contents of the game manual. Ridernyc 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it and there is nothing close to this in the manual. When the manual was created all these scenarios didn't exist. Dunno how anyone could even suggest it looking like the manual. Nothing in the ariticle has been copied from anything. The article has been moved, so it will be saved even if it's deleted here. WOC_Perfect 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirects are cheap. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lachrymology[edit]

Prod contested by IP editor. This seems to be a non notable hoax religion. Beyond the mere fact that it was invented by progressive rock band Tool, it is not referenceable from independent sources. WjBscribe 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable, no reliable sources. It's not like it made the news or anything, and only fans of the band (myself included) know anything of or about it. (It's also over 10 years old now, many new fans wouldn't know about it unless they'd read a fan site, and it doesn't even appear on album covers or in anything official from the band - it was simply a word dropped during an interview, and a subsequent "explanation"). Orderinchaos 00:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect As my username comes from the first Tool LP, I am obviously a huge fan. However, it's not notable, and would be best summed up in a sentence or two in the main article. the_undertow ^talk 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already noted, there is NO independant notability for this "religion" beyond perhaps a 1-2 line mention in the article for Tool. Again, big fan of Tool and Perfect Circle here, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs this article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, a pre-emptive redirect to Tool (band) may be appropriate, since it is likely this article will be recreated, leading to this again. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. This term will most likely be googled by fans so your idea is a good one. the_undertow ^talk 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject with no independant third party sources. A short summary of it can be put into the main Tool article as already mentioned. Clearly it doesn't have enough independant sources to have its own article. AngelOfSadness talk 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 01:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube 02:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band's page. JJL 03:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band's pageBalloonman 07:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to band's page. Doczilla 08:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salted as it is the 5th time it was deleted --JForget 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Stern[edit]

Subject has not achieved anything worthy of an encyclopedia article Ground Zero | t 00:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Doesn't meet the standards for notability by a longshot. Calgary 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately not speediable, as it atleast asserts that it is notable. However, none of those assertions seem to count, there are no independent sources, and this is likely a vanity page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree with Jayron that it is sad that we can't speedy this because the article makes some claim to notability; however these claims do not make the subject notable per WP:BIO's section on politicians . TonyBallioni 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately the minor claims of notability lack independant third party sources. As a result the subject fails to meet the criteria of notability. AngelOfSadness talk 01:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No sign of notability found. His "famous quote" has 3 Google hits, all selfpublished by him. PrimeHunter 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although he almost had me at Creedence fan. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ for entertainment value... er wait, that isn't a valid reason... I guess, I'll have to switch to DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for nn. Doczilla 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Lacks sources. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clearly non-notable. TGreenburgPR 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madan (people)[edit]

It seems this topic is covered already under Marsh_Arabs. I vote to cross check content and then delete it!

Alternatively, if Madan Or Ma'adan is what "Marsh Arabs" call themselves, perhaps rename "Marsh Arabs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfanslow (talk • contribs) 2007/10/26 06:06:40

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Marsh Arabs (which should be the name per WP:NC). Although our article says the Madan are just one kind, most sources use the terms interchangeably. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Premiers of Canadian Provinces are fairly obviously notable. Sam Blacketer 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Harris[edit]

Non-article worthy item. Of little significance and as a result fails notability guidelines. User:jointoperations November 4, 2007 2:50 UTC.

Keep. Surely a Premier of Ontario is notable if anyone is. Katharineamy 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed with user above, Premier of Ontario articles should be important. The article needs a picture, though. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is highly praised by some and detested by others because of his controversial tenure as Premier of Ontario. This clearly makes him notable. Wanderer57 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 17:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure ([39]) overturned. Neil 13:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish subversion[edit]

This paragraph (it is a stub really) is an obvious WP:POVFORK that can become a POV magnet as well. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge contents into Antisemitic canard, as above. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agree with IZAK and the nom TaintedZebra 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — This article is not about "Antisemitic canard". The user who added antisemitic canard is User:Malik Shabazz [40] It is an independent topic regardless of antisemitic canards. It is not a neologism either, because "Jewish subversion" has been used in many academic books (which you can see by just looking at the references) explaining antisemitism. And how is this article a WP:POVFORK? It deals with discrimination Jews have faced by several different leading politicians. If it becomes a "POV magnet", we'll just make it NPOV. The topic is notable though. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. — Dangerous? Provocative? I'm sorry, but that is what he said he did. Didn't you read the cited source? Also, I found that in the Nazism article:

Nazism has come to stand for a belief in the superiority of an Aryan race, an abstraction of the Germanic peoples. During the time of Hitler, the Nazis advocated a strong, centralized government under the Führer and claimed to defend Germany and the German people (including those of German ethnicity abroad) against Communism and so-called Jewish subversion. Ultimately, the Nazis sought to create a largely homogeneous and autarchic ethnic state, absorbing the ideas of Pan-Germanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Ideology

Are you going to delete that too now? By the way, I can see that the AfD nominator is Jewish. This isn't a personal attack or anything, but I get the feeling that censorship is at hand due to an uncomfortable topic, and you have to remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. Jewish subversion is hardly a neologism, it is even used by the Jerusalem post:[41] And many other newspapers and scholarly books: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Sorry, but this is an independent topic, and deleting this topic is censorship and nothing else. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:53 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, Elias, are you open to the ridiculous suggestion that as the article's author is not Jewish, that the feeling could be had that the author has an anti-Semitic agenda and wants to spread such ideas on wikipedia? I would not say that, but it is the mirror image of your above argument. People have areas of expertise; Jews are more likely than not more informed and aware about topics related to Jews than non-Jews are. Further, they are more likely to have an interest in Jewish topics. It is nothing more than simple probability as to why the nominator is Jewish. Similarly, even casting the aspersion that because the nominator is Jewish that is the reason why this article is nominated for deletion, besides an example of the circumstantial argumentum ad hominem: Appeal to motive, is also somewhat disturbing/insulting to those of us who try and do our best to approach things fairly and neutrally as best we can. -- Avi 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda to spread anything. I create articles that may not be mainstream topics and very controversial. This goes for all topics that I find. Why do I do that? Because I want to learn something new. When Wikipedians collaborate on an article, it will sooner or later become an informative article. That is why I create articles on Wikipedia; the topic seems interesting, someone will work on it, and when I look back at the article after 20 editors or so have expanded it, I will get an informative article about the subject and being able to expand my knowledge about this and that. That is my main motive for creating articles on Wikipedia, and I don't want to see them deleted because I don't find that productive. And for the record, I'm not an anti-Semite. Though of course, you are free to believe that I am, if it makes you happy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:45 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it would be ridiculous to call you an anti-Semite because of the combination of your starting the article and not being Jewish. Parallely, I think it is ridiculous to accuse IZAK of censorship because of the combination that he nomimanted the article for deletion and that he is Jewish. Do you disagree with the parallelism? -- Avi 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title alone is a tip that this one isn't going to be entirely neutral. It's like having "Communists in the State Department" as the introduction to McCarthyism. While the accusations that Hitler made would be notable, merely changing the title to "Accusations of Jewish Subversion" isn't a cure for this seigheilish little essay. Mandsford 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The title is beside the point, that is what this is called. If your concern is NPOV, that is no reason to delete this article. Because if your reason to delete this article is NPOV concern, then you are not neutral yourself since your POV is clearly showing. You think this is an uncomfortable topic, and again, I'll have to remind you, Wikipedia isn't censored. What you're implying, is that you want to delete this article because you don't like the title of it. That is censorship. Case in point: your delete vote is not valid and shouldn't count. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:22 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - - "Your delete vote is not valid and shouldn't count". Oh, excuse me. Change the title of garbage and it's still garbage. I like the way you lump Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church together as one: "Nazi Germany and the Roman Catholic Church considered 'Jewish subversion' to be a threat." What's up with that? Mandsford 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This is not a vote: please see WP:PNSD. Freshacconci | Talk 12:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Discussion or not, you will have to find valid reasons to delete this article, if you want it deleted. {{NPOV}} disputes are not reasons for deletion. Either you find actual reasons to delete this article, and then we can discuss if it's a valid reason to delete it, or, you edit the article until the point where you consider it NPOV. This "delete it because I find it too POV" is clearly an abuse of AfD debates. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:39 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      - EliasAlucard: Just a point, it is not censorship to nominate and request that this article's content's be put into the main Antisemitic canard article, because no sane person or scholar gives any credence to Hitler's "Jewish subversion canard" delusional rantings, you may as well start articles about Insane rantings by Adolf Hitler or Delusions of Adolf Hitler. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment This is not exclusive to Hitler. And all other sections in Antisemitic canard have their own articles. This one should be no exception. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:18 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        When it was nominated it was but a mere stub quoting Hitler in it's opening sentence. Since then, in the last 24 hours, the {{rescue}} template was added to it and a few more allegations were put into it. The onus is upon the editors who decided to create it to actually prove what the Jewish "subversion" really was and if it indeed exists at all. What were the Jews "subverting" exactly? Is there any historical proof that the Jews subverted any place? Methinks not, if anything, history shows that wherever Jews were let in, the countries were enriched, so it would have been a better public service to create Jewish contributions to civilization and if one needs to dwell on lies, maybe create Allegations of Jewish subversion, but you can't have an article about "Jewish subversion" just because Hitler, or some Popes or Henry Ford decided to say so in their state of dementia. IZAK 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply You are showing your blatant POV bias now. Let's be honest, you want this article deleted, not because it's a hoax or anything of the other things you claim, but because you fear it will result in some sort of persecution of Jews, if we have an article, documenting on "Jewish subversion". This is the reason why you want to censor this article. Also, I wouldn't call the famine of the Soviet Union, "enriched". — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:15 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        
        Do I read this right? It sounds as if you're suggesting here that Jews caused "the famine of the Soviet Union". Wow. Mandsford 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply No, you read that wrong. He claimed that in whatever country Jews have been, the country has been "enriched". Obviously, that was not the case with the Soviet Union. I didn't insinuate that the famine was the Jews' fault; I just disproved the myth he was trying to create. I must say however, I think it's quite arrogant to claim that wherever Jews go, the country prospers because of Jews. Sounds like Jewish supremacy if you ask me. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:51 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        Comment I think y'all are being a tad silly here. Taking IZAK's statement too far would be the fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Even if there is a correlation between economic, scientific, or cultural advancement and the presence of Jews in those fields, the most that can be said for certain is that a correlation exists, and we would have to see statistical evidence for that. Elias is exhibiting the fallacies of Ignoratio elenchi and Hasty generalization, in that having a famine in an area does not in any way shape or form mean that enrichment could not have occurred in other areas. Further, famines are acts of G-d or nature, and even humorously attributing responsibility for them to a specific category of people is somewhat reminiscent of past libelous situations. This is the 21st century, you know :) . -- Avi 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Actually, Avi, the famine was due to Soviet policies (see Holodomor)...the same Soviet policies, as it happens, that were shipping tens of thousands of Jews to gulags at the same time. The idea that the Jews caused the famine inadvertently, or that the Jews created it intentionally, bespeaks two concurrent problems: deliberate antisemitically-inspired lying and unforgivable ignorance. As for the assertion that societies that invite Jews in experience a flowering of cultural and economic, etc. advancement...that is true. It is also true, however, that it's not just because they let Jews come in and live freely—it is because when policies are enacted that encourage Jews to come to a country and live in freedom, the same policies are extended to the populace at large. Freedom inspires creativity and enterprise, regardless of whether it is offered to Jews or to non-Jews. The one thing that does "help" in such circumstances is when Jews move into such countries and bring philanthropy and investment with them. An example of this can be seen with the Fugu Plan, whereby Jews were invited to Japan, and some went. Prosperity did not ensue, however, because the Jews there were subjects of the oppressive Japanese Empire (although the Jews did not experience the same horrors as some of the Chinese did at the same time, at the hands of the Emperor's armies). It is freedom that brings prosperity, not simply the presence of Jews, although free Jews certainly help. Tomer ^talk 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To dislike Hitler is a crime? That's a new one! So why were the Nuremberg Trials held? I think that it was great that they were held, does that make me too POV as well? Don't be ridiculous. Everybody has a POV -- you included -- but it's as editors that we all control our POV to write and edit in a NPOV fashion, so you have no clue what NPOV means if your interpretation of it is "NO Point Of View" -- which is not what Neutral Point Of View means. Check it out. This nomination is neutral and the article will stand or fall on its merits, and please note it is other users who state that the article is a violation of WP:NPOV because the nomination is more basic than that. Note also, that as a human being I am entitled to my anti-Hitler feelings just as anyone is free to have pro-Hitler feelings, and may the best man win. But really now, do you really think that I hold that I "fear it will result in some sort of persecution of Jews" when the whole Internet is flooded with all of the worst antisemitic garbage in history? If that is what you think, then you can review my edit history and you will find that my record shows that I have no fear of well-written truly NPOV articles about anything, which this one is not. It was just an opinion piece for Hitler when I nominated it and now it's not much better, just that it now quotes from some Popes and other misfits. IZAK 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply What? Where did that come from? Where did I ever write that disliking Hitler is a crime? Stop putting words in my mouth like that with Straw man fallacies. Yes, everyone has his POV, and so do you. This nomination is nowhere close to being neutral. Basically, it goes something like this: "HELLO, I'M JEWISH, BECAUSE OF THAT, I FIND THIS ARTICLE PROVOCATIVE AND I DON'T LIKE IT, SO I WANT IT DELETED, REGARDLESS OF IF IT IS A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC, AND THE POPE AND ALL ANTISEMITES ARE DEMENTED MISFITS". You're not representing yourself very well with your personal attacks. Nowhere did I say that NPOV means NO POINT OF VIEW. But it goes without saying, you, are not being objective here with your deletion rationale. You and many others who have voted delete, want this article deleted, because you don't like it. That is is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Add a {{cleanup}} tag. Your approach of the first edit you make in the article by putting it up for deletion, is obviously, a very suspicious approach. Had it been some other article, it would just have been put up for {{OR}}, {{cleanup}}, {{NPOV}} or something else. But now, it's a controversial topic, and therefore it must be deleted. That is to me, pure and simple, censorship. Another thing, you say: you can't have an article about "Jewish subversion" just because Hitler, or some Popes or Henry Ford decided to say so in their state of dementia. — What? Who are you to decide the rules on what articles should be allowed and not allowed on Wikipedia? If the article has notability, we can have an article about it regardless of the topic. Otherwise we'd have to delete all articles which put Islam in a negative light. Bottom line, AfD is not an {{NPOV}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:15 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why is the title any worse than, say, Zionist Occupation Government, Kosher tax, or Jewish Bolshevism? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, Malik, who is questioning those topics now? You were the one to put in the links to Antisemitic canard [42] and added it to Category:Antisemitic canards [43] and what the nomination is requesting is that the information in this stub (of Jewish subversion) be put into the Antisemitic canard article where it rightly belongs. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry that my comment became separated from the comment to which it was a response: "The title alone is a tip that this one isn't going to be entirely neutral. It's like having 'Communists in the State Department' as the introduction to McCarthyism." My point was that "ZOG", "Kosher tax", and "Jewish Bolshevism" were similar titles that aren't preceded by "Allegations of ..."
      Regarding "Antisemitic canards", please read my comments elsewhere on this page: "'Jewish subversion' is an antisemitic canard but ... each of the other canards at 'Antisemitic canard' has its own article." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Freshacconci | Talk 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to speak to the subject and explain what the concept was/is who used/uses it and how; POV issues are legion on wikipedia but not a reason to delete an article that's a reason to edit an article. Deletion an article because it's a POV or vandalism magnet would wipe out Jesus and plenty of other standard fare for an encyclopedia. Fix through regular editing and make suggestions to focus the lede to steer towards non-forkiness as appropriate. Benjiboi 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Benjiboi is right. This entire AfD nomination, has no support in Wikipedia policy: WP:DEL#REASON — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:50 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - Sources for a huge historical hoax and lie and then place it in Category:Hoaxes. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is clearly not "Antisemitic canard". I've just recently read a biography of Winston Churchill, and several books regarding Neville Chamberlain and the British government during the late 30's and up to the start of the WW2 and the question of "Jewish Subverion" runs through all these books. Jewish refugees who wanted to come to the UK after the start of the war were viewed with suspicion, simply due to this reason, and this lead to them being sent to the British mandate of palestine after a certain number came to the UK, I think the number was 12000. scope_creep 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just a canard, it's a lie. There is no such thing as "Jewish subversion" (if only people knew how disunited and split the Jews are, for 2000 years they couldn't even get a country of their own but wandered around like lost sheep!)-- or are there Christian subversion or Hindu subversion or American subversion or Chinese subversion? (Of the latter there actually may be), but "Jewish subversion" is a hoax actually a violation of WP:HOAX and pure fiction of the delusional sort. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. It just seems to be a soap box for anti-semitic views; not a proper encyclopedic article.Spylab 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Reply If it's a lie, why are you so afraid to have an article about it? Isn't it better that we have an article where it explains all these allegations, and perhaps, even refute them as being false? Also, it's you who should prove that it's a hoax. You can do that by editing the article with credible sources. If you want it deleted because you consider it a hoax, then I'm afraid, you're giving the impression that this accusation of subversion is so genuine that you want to censor it on Wikipdia. In any case, it's not a violation of WP:HOAX, it may be a false accusation, but regardless of that, it has an important historical significance in the history of the Jewish people. Your ancestors have been killed because of Jewish subversion. You want to ignore this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:23 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    - What do you mean by your statement: "Your ancestors have been killed because of Jewish subversion" without even a qualifier or what? So now editors must think about who was "killed" in their families when the identity of editors is anonymous? It is beneath contempt that a discussion on Wikipedia could stoop to such depths that fear of who was allegedly "killed" is introduced into a discussion. Well, then again, Blood libels did occur but they only revealed how demented and sick those who created the lies really are. IZAK 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Well obviously, Jews, which I assume are your ancestors, have been persecuted, and killed, because they have been perceived as "Subversive". That alone is a notable reason to have an article about it on Wikipedia. The question here isn't if Jews are by their nature subversive or not. This article is simply trying to report about the phenomenon that Jews, throughout history, have been accused of "Subversion". — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:36 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        Pardon, but this so-called article was only a quote from Hitler when you wrote it, so don't backtrack now by saying that "Jews, throughout history, have been accused of "Subversion"" -- and you know something, this is a dumb discussion, because every nation that has had enemies has been accused of "subversion" or something else like that, but why does that have to get huge articles? Alleged subversion by Greeks written by Turks, Alleged subversion of Muslims written by Christians, Alleged subversion of Tibetans written by Chinese, and is there an article about Nazi subversion or did the Nazis not subvert anything? Something is very wrong here, when this article needs to be defended. There was a similar debate about "Israeli aparthied" and it was resolved to call it Allegations of Israeli apartheid as in Allegations of apartheid. So even the choice of wording for this article is way off. IZAK 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply this so-called article was only a quote from Hitler when you wrote it — This is a lie as much as it can be a lie. This is what it looked like before it was put to AfD,[44] obviously, more than a quote from Hitler. Now, the interesting question is, why are you making up lies like that? Why are you disingenuous? Obviously, the article had a lot more content than a mere quote from Hitler; it never actually quoted Hitler, it said, Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion, that wasn't a verbatim quote. But anyway, all your lies aside, would you be satisfied if we called this article Allegations of Jewish subversion? If you can find me historical examples of Greeks, Turks or any other kind of ethnic groups being accused of subversion as much as the Jews have been, I think we definitely should make articles out of that too. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — Well obviously, it is a topic related to antisemitism. I can see by now, that is the sole reason you want it deleted. Again, WP:NOTCENSORED. If you feel it isn't Encyclopaedic enough, edit it to a higher quality. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:16 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment As you seem to like citing that one rule, I'd like to point out what it actually says: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)..." (emphasis mine). This is not a question of censorship. The article appears to be anti-semitic in nature which violates WP:NPOV. Freshacconci | Talk 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply — This article is not antisemitic, it's a topic related to antisemitism. This article has a historical significance, it deserves an encyclopaedic entry just as much as Jewish Question, Homosexuality and Islam, Islamic extremism, Islamophobia and other, controversial topics, which may, by the very nature of the article's topic, seem like anti this or anti that. Again, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Now, it's an indisputable fact, that this topic, Jewish subversion, is linked to politicians and other historically important men who have expressed antisemitic views regarding this article's topic. Again, that is not a reason to censor this article by deleting it. This article is part of Jewish history, it's an encyclopaedic topic. It deserves to stay. Now, I do agree that the current revision isn't exactly the best article on Wikipedia, but that is no reason to delete it. You can help improving the article by expanding and editing it to a higher quality version. By the way, where does it say, in Wikipedia policy, that you are allowed to AfD articles due to NPOV concerns? If this article gets deleted due to NPOV, I will report it as abuse of NPOV policy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:48 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment — As I said, this AfD debate is an abuse of AfD nomination. Read this: WP:NPOV/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Fact remains: this topic is discussed in academic literature about antisemitism, it's here to stay, whether you like it or not. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:58 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment Excuse me? If it is deleted its history. Seems to me it looks just like a duck, it sounds just like a duck, it walks just like a duck, but...Modernist 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply — What's that supposed to mean? If this article gets deleted, it only shows how censored Wikipedia actually is. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:18 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment Nowhere does it say you cannot use WP:NPOV as a reason for deletion. The section you cite ends with: "Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed." There are serious questions of verifiability here. If that is not established, then WP:NOR applies. The sources cited merely add supposed references to what appears to be original research. In order to save this article, we would need to gut it and start again. Is there any point to that? Others have suggested a merge and that is a sound compromise, and that is exactly what we are here for, reaching consensus. Please do not jump the gun on whether or not the article is "here to stay". The necessary gutting of this apparent bit of original research would likely lead to an edit war: not a reason in itself to delete, but more than enough reason to be cautious and consider at the very least a merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshacconci (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nowhere does it say you cannot use WP:NPOV as a reason for deletion. — But that is what the AfD nominator did. This entire AfD debate, should on that basis, be disqualified since it wasn't a valid reason to AfD it in the first place. If the AfD nomination had been something like, "article has no encyclopaedic notability", that would have been a valid reason to discuss if it's notable and if it should be deleted. But, the truth is, the AfD nomination is for one reason only: the nominator is Jewish, he doesn't like the article because it bothers him, hence, he wants it deleted. I'm sorry, but that in itself, is not neutral. If you think this article suffers from Original Research, then you add an {{OR}} tag on it, discuss on the article's talk page, and from there, we reach consensus, compromise, and fix the article to an NPOV, free from Original Research, revision. This entire AfD debate should be closed without any deletion, because it's not a valid procedure in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It's so obvious that there are users here, far from being neutral on the subject, who want this article deleted for the sole reason that it bothers them, they feel offended by the controversial nature of the article; that's why they want to delete it. That is what we reasonable people call, Censorship. And don't even start with the "you're an antisemite" ad hominems. Personal attacks will get you nowhere. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:36 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment It sounds to me as though you might consider WP:NPA in your remarks about the nominator of this AfD. By the way this so called article that you are so ardently supporting is a total of 3 paragraphs of various biased points of view from Hitler to Henry Ford, this is not Censorship, your argument sounds a little too much like WP:ILIKEIT, and YES it's a duck, and I think you can understand that. Modernist 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply — It's not a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. And neither is it WP:ILIKEIT, I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion. I believe the reasons given here to delete the article, lack a valid, and most of all, neutral, reason. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:02 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment I never called you an anti-semite. I said that the "article appears to be anti-semitic in nature." But it's interesting that you jumped to that conclusion, which is just as interesting as you pointing out that another editor is Jewish, and that is why "he wants it deleted." Cries of censorship, persecution and pointing out irrelevant information about someone's identity are odd ways to reach consensus (reminds me of certain groups, but I digress). By the way, my comment above pointed out that WP:NPOVis allowed as a reason for deletion (i.e. it does not say that we can't use it, as you have claimed). As for "it's here to stay, whether you like it or not" and "I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion": you may want to check out WP:OWN. The fact remains, many of us feel the article is not worth keeping. That is our opinion. You can continue to obsessively watch this page and reply to everyone who disagrees with you, but I will move on. My opinion is here for the record. Have a nice day. Freshacconci | Talk 18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm not trying to WP:OWN anything. I added the {{expert}} tag, did I not? I added it because I wanted help with the article from people who are more familiar with the topic than I am. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:01 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment This article is certainly not anti-semitic, and its NOT an neologism. Trying to extinguish something which is historical fact is stupidity in itself and is akin to burning books. Any student of pre WW2 history will tell you that this fact and phrase was well know throughout Europe and America in the 20's, 30's and early 40's. And please don't label me anti-semitic. I am half Jewish myself. scope_creep 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThis so called article is about the German propaganda used against the Jewish people during the 1930s. Anti-semitic nah, by the way which half is Jewish? Modernist 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article at the moment only has a German reference to it, but it was used all over Europe and America at the time. It needs to be expanded with the right content and tidied up. The dark half....;8-) Modernist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is a question to the dark half - what was used all over Europe and America at the time? and please sign your edits - Modernist 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Reply Then we tag it Nazi propaganda,[45] which only makes it more notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:41 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Redirect to, and Merge content into Antisemitic canard where it will fit perfectly with the other dozen or so examples of such. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's interesting here, according to the AfD nominator: There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. — is that, all the sections in the Antisemitic canard have their own, separate articles. Hence, this article, shouldn't be deleted. Should it have its own section in Antisemitic canard? Sure. But deleted? In my opinion, no. Otherwise we'll have to AfD all other articles in Antisemitic canard. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:34 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Just to clarify my position: I don't think that the material should be deleted, just the article. Other sections within Jewish subversion are larger and might need to be separate articles, but I don't think this material does. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Jewish subversion" is an antisemitic canard but, as EliasAlucard just wrote, each of the other canards at Antisemitic canard has its own article. Accusations of Jewish subversion date from Biblical times (Esther 3:8, perhaps even Exodus 1:10) and have been a near-constant theme in anti-Jewish politics since then. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all due respect this article says nothing of the kind, Biblical? Esther? Exodus? what article did you read? I don't think so. Modernist 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The article is still in its early stages. Yesterday, when it was created, it was a few sentences; while it's much improved today, it's still mostly about the 20th century . My point is that, contrary to many of the earlier comments, "Jewish subversion" is not a term or concept that originated with the Nazis. A more complete article, to which I'll help contribute, will show that accusations of Jewish subversion are almost as old as the Jewish diaspora. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment with all due respect, Modernist, but this article, is just the tip of the iceberg. I think that instead of wasting time on this AfD debate, we should be working on it. It can become a great article helping showcase the persecution of Jews through the centuries. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:29 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment with respect to you perhaps the article should be renamed and refocused to say: Subversion Of The Jewish People Over The Years. By the way this looks like WP:Canvas [46] - Modernist 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:Canvas? The guy seems familiar with this topic, I would like to improve this article, and I asked him for some help. What's wrong with that? User:Scope creep has actually voted in this AfD poll. It doesn't fall under canvas. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:43 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

CommentWP:Civilty please. As entertaining as it is to dig through who's accusing who of what I'd much rather see some constructive work on improving the article to where most disagreements are rendered resolved or we all agree that the article could never possible be encyclopedic. As we apparently have a few folks here who have knowledge on the subject please apply your energy into refocusing the lede and addressing the needs of the article. I'm quite concerned that those, like myself, who would like to contribute to the article are not getting much constructive outflow from this discussion. It's a tough subject and one which wikipedia can grasp with breathtaking maturity if given the chance. Benjiboi 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a notable concept and is well cited. Could use some cleanup and editors of this article should keep WP:NPOV in mind. I don't agree that this is violates WP:NEO or WP:POVFORK. Pilotbob 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The concept is notable but the implementation is awful. This needs to start from scratch using academic sources. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article is using almost exclusively academic sources, it's well cited to published academic books from different universities. There's no need to delete it, just edit it until you feel satisfied with it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:12 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Delete, do not merge. I would expect scholar treatment of the topic, not a haphazard and dubious collection of quotes lacking context. Such kind of articles needs to be created complete abd cannot be built by random people adding their favourite bits. Pavel Vozenilek 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Afd is not a {{cleanup}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:21 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Comment Following along with this debate, I'll pose this question to you Elias... are you referring to Jews being subverted by someone else, or are you referring to Jews being subversive? "Subversion" has more than one meaning, although it's most commonly used in the sense of a group conspiring in secret to do something evil, rather than the same group's existence being undermined by someone else. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on an ambiguous word. Mandsford 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply To be honest, I have no idea or should I say, no knowledge of this word's (as in "Jewish subversion") history. I found it when I edited the Nazism article,[47] and decided to create an article out of it, from what I could find on the Internet, because it seemed like an interesting topic. That's what I usually do when I discover new topics, for instance, Aslim Taslam was added for AfD just as soon as I had created it, but it survived the nomination, and now it's an interesting article. To answer your question: have the Jews been subverted by other peoples? Yeah, many times; a few examples are the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, and lastly, the Germans. Have the Jews been subversive towards other peoples? Probably; there are those who claim they have. Gwynne accuses them of being subversive through the revolutionaries of their race,[48] which I assume he was talking about the Russian Revolution when the Bolsheviks seized power; a coup d'état in which many Jews were involved (which is why there's an article entitled Jewish Bolshevism). But this article should report on it from an NPOV stance. To claim that this is an Antisemitic canard, is of course, needless to say, a POV stance because it implies that this accusation of Jews being subversive, is by default, false. Now, whether this accusation of Jews being subversive is false or true, is none of my concern. I believe this article has an Encyclopaedic value, simply because of its long use by politicians, and the fact that it is a controversial topic, is why I believe it's an absolute must to have an article about it. I also believe that Jews have been persecuted because they have been perceived as "subversive" (most notably, in Nazi Germany). That is why I want an article about it, because once a lot of editors edit the article, improve it and expand it, it will be an interesting article and it will clear up a lot of misconceptions. By the way, if I'm not mistaken here, Muhammad considered the Jews subversive as well, which is why he persecuted them until there were basically no Jews left in the Arabian peninsula. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:50 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

*DELETE and MERGE relevant content into a broader anti-semitism article. I just don't see the point about retaining this as a separate article, nor EliasAlucard's passion for doing so. Are we to have Wikipedia articles such as Big Nosed Jews, Greedy Jews, etc.? Those are certainly derogatory statements that one could find secondary source for, as well, aren't they? Shawn in Montreal 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that supposed to be funny? You can't compare this, a political term, with stereotyping of facial features of Jews. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:05 01 Nov, 2007 *(UTC)
- No. I'm dead serious. But actually I see there are separate articles for all the canards so I can't argue such a position, after all. So withdraw my deletion without offering to keep, either. Have your Jewish subversion article. Shawn in Montreal 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After the article had been nominated for deletion, the definition of subject was changed to: "Jewish subversion is a term mostly used by anti-semites to justify hostility toward Jewish people or those perceived to be Jewish". Since now the article seems to be about Jewish Subversion as a firm term, it should report about the history of the term, and say who has used it in the public where the first time. But in the article, I can't find any clear source for a literal use of this very term Jewish Subversion. So far, this article is a bullet-point list of unrelated accusations made against Jews through history. --Schwalker 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed that lede to be avoid POV problems (not all who use the term are anti-semites, and hate speech is often misdirected at people one mistakes to belong to a certain group, etc). If it's broken then either fix the lede, the article or both via regular editing per WP:AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is true, the remedy for a POV content is to edit, not delete; but it is legitimate to delete an article that through its topical focus can not hope to meet NPOV standards. I think the title is inherently POV, for starters; and the topic is so vague ("subversion") that it is practically impossible to differentiate from the general theme of antisemitic canards. Articles that deal with very specific allegations (Doctors' Plot, blood libel, Jenin "massacre") may justify their own article, but this, in my view, is too broad. --Leifern 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've listed yourself as an inclusionist, now that wasn't very inclusionist of you, was it? :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:52 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Delete. For one thing, there's nothing about jewish subversion in the article, only allegations of jewish subversion, of shaky reliability. Gzuckier 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually that's part of the point. Hitler may or may not have believed there was actual Jewish subversion but he certainly promoted the concept and used the term thus it is in the article and as the article is expanded the subject will be better explained. Benjiboi 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Antisemitic canard where it will fit with the other so examples of such. --JewBask 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As was stated above all those canards seem to have articles of their own already. Benjiboi 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provocative and unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please expand why provocative and unnecessary is grounds for deletion. Otherwise it seems like you just don't like it. Benjiboi 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently the article is nothing more than a list of the times this phrase was used by anti-semites. This in no way shape or form implies that the term is notable in and of itself; it is an example of an association fallacy. Just because more than one anti-semite uses this term does not mean that it means the same thing to them or anyone else. To suggest that these people all had the same intent and idea in mind is original research, albeit possbibly implied, on the part of the article's author. At this point I see no way for this article to be salvaged from its obvious point-of-view biases, original research violations, essay-likeness, and lack of context. Should an article about the phenomenon of the use of the allegation that Jews, as a whole, are considered by anti-Semites of all types, religions, and eras, to constantly be involved in the subversion of whatever government and country that they happen to reside, then I could consider having this listed in "AntiSemitic Canards" with perhaps its own, properly sourced and impartially written article. This article does no such thing and is thus unworthy of wikipedia on its own merits. Avi 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maximally merge with canard. Just a list of accusations of subversion, quite meaningless without context. JFW | T@lk 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yossiea ^(talk) 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To even debate this is silly. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic seems legitimate. I think a problem here might be the name, which implies acceptance of the claim, so suggest rename to Claims of Jewish subversion or Accusations of Jewish subversion. --Eliyak T·C —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agree the article title is a sensitive subject but so is Homosexual agenda which is balanced by the actual article which explains the term and usage. Perhaps we should insist the content be upgraded to accurately portray the term and its usage? Benjiboi 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree with both of you. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:46 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the direction of the article violates WP:OR and is beyond salvageability. --MPerel 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:43, 02 Nov 2007 (UTC)
Delete not nearly enough content to warrent article. Yahel Guhan 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps with REname as per Eliyak. This article has a wealth of citations. Whether all the items listed should be included is a different question. However, Jewish subversion was Hitler's excuse for genocide against Jews. This certainly makes the topic an important one. It is not WP:OR in the sense that is usually meant by that term (i.e. personal views, unsupported by evidence). The fact that he subject is unpalatable is no reason for deleting it. Nor does it violate WP:POV, for it is not expressing a POV, but describing one that people have held, even if it is (or was) unjustified. Peterkingiron 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:04, 04 Nov 2007 (UTC)

Keep I failed to see how is this article is a WP:POVFORK. This article have good sources and is notable and is pretty much NPov. I am sorry, but I think Jewish editors are being too sensitive. Chris! _ct 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SORRY, NO. A more thorough discussion? Didn't you discuss this enough already the other day? Nobody's interested in debating with you anymore. Mandsford 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the title is non-neutral, than neither will the article content Will ^(talk) 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Elias. Now you're editing out the comments you don't like? Grow up, son. Like I say, you discussed this one to death. More than 3/4ths of the discussion is written by you. Mandsford 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It's not that it was a comment I didn't like. It was relisted for more votes. It is allowed to do that. Your comment wasn't a discussion and it didn't do anything to help reach a consensus. You basically implied that you didn't want to discuss it more. So you don't have to. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:29 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
This, coming from the kid who wrote "I'll have to remind you, Wikipedia isn't censored." I think it was like the third comment out of the thirty that you wrote last week, so you might have forgotten that you thought you were a victim of censorship. Regardless, you should be aware that editing comments on AfD is a "no-no" here. If you keep trying it, it's easily verified. I'm just telling you before an administrator has to. Mandsford 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for filling me in on how things work on Wikipedia. I must commend you for insulting my intelligence, as if I couldn't myself figure out that it is easily verified. But you're wrong on one thing: this isn't censorship. Censorship is to prohibit politically sensitive content from being shown to the public. For instance, deleting this article on the basis that the "title isn't neutral", is censorship. Deleting a provocative comment which is not adding ANYTHING to the debate, isn't exactly what I would call censorship. But hey, I just added your comment back if it makes you happy. Now, can we please continue this serious AfD discussion, with votes and actual arguments for deleting/keeping it, based on REASON and LOGIC? Thanks. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:49 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
- Could you two stop bickering about some personal issues here? This is an afd and not a general discussion. Just let it work. OK. Chris! _ct 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, Mandsford is right for one thine. You can't edit nor delete someone's comment. Chris! _ct 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors have expressed a willingness to add to the article but seem to unwilling to waste time if article is to be deleted. Article has been zealously referenced now simply needs a chance to be written while not under the threat of deletion. I suggest those who feel it can't possibly be encyclopedic enough consider "allowing" article to be and develop (maybe a month or two?) and revisit issue if article doesn't progress enough. Benjiboi 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is systematically referenced, appears NPOV, is short, and lists several examples of notable anti-Semites using the term or concept of "Jewish Subversion". One suggestion for improvement: (slightly) longer quotations from Hitler, Ford, etc., could make it more apparent that said individuals really were complaining about Jewish subversion per se. Phrenophobia 04:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Autobiography (album)[edit]

Unsourced, possibly false info Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the creator of the article is currently blocked and is unable to participate in the discussion. I also not that the editor has not been notified of the AFD. -- Whpq 13:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreleased album with no sources. Note that in the history for the article, there is a version with a very badly formatted reference to this. It's an AOL music blog which essentially indicates that Mims is working on an album, bit does not identify the name. If reliable sources do turn up, I am open to a keep. -- Whpq 13:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced crystal ballery. Precious Roy 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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