Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

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 Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. Camaron1 | Chris 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gowerton School[edit]

This article seems to be complete nonsense WelshBloke 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 19:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :Does absolutely nothing to assert the notability of the school (or indeed say anything at all about it).Nigel Ish 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pure Reason Revolution. No consensus Chloe Alper. Delete Jim Dobson. Delete Jamie Willcox. -- Jreferee t/c 06:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Reason Revolution[edit]

Appears to be a breach of both WP:BIO and WP:NMG. The language and detail of the article suggests it is a vanity page, and thus breach of WP:NOT. Google almost invariably returns an Official site which links to their Myspace. Unreferenced for months. Jza84 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they to appear to be breaches of WP:BIO, WP:NMG and WP:NOT. Language also suggests these are vanity pages, citing Myspace accounts:

Thanks, Jza84 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:BAND. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles mentioned contain conjecture and unverifiable material. Pages are also being used as promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.220.38 (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I've done some clean-up on the article, including adding three reliable citations (thus the article qualifies under WP:BAND criterion #1). Their first single made #74 in the UK chart, which may count under WP:BAND #2. They were signed to SonyBMG, with an early release on Poptones and a later European release on InsideOut, so they just about qualify under WP:BAND #5 too. They've toured the UK and toured internationally (as the support act), so that counts under WP:BAND #4. "pure reason revolution" produces 239,000 hits on Google; browsing through the first few pages, they are all about the band. While recognizing that the article needs clean-up, I am quite surprised that somebody could read the article and think it is not notable under WP:BAND. By the way, may I also point out WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest, which explicity discourages use of the term "vanity" as being against WP:AGF. Bondegezou 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further to the above, the article has evidence under WP:BAND #11 too. The individual pages are more problematic. I suggest merging and re-directing Jim Dobson and Jamie Willcox, but I suggest keep for Chloe Alper. I've done some work on that article, including a citation for a minor chart placing and radio rotation for her earlier band Period Pains. Bondegezou 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe Alper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a notable musician with an interesting background. Her name produces 1,730 Google hits. The Wikipedia article about her is fact-based, objective and relevant. The language used on the page is not fanciful as 'Jza84' suggests. The page should not be deleted. Strange that 'Jza84' seems so determined to close all "Pure Reason Revolution"-related pages.... -- 84.9.36.81 (talk · contribs · logs) 09:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Alper has a distinct lack of notability as either a musician or a performer. On one of her publicity shots available on the internet she clearly has the key note names written on scraps of paper and stuck to the keys. She openly admits in an internet interview to having only started playing the bass 2 years ago. Her page was self-penned, uses fanciful language and is self-promoting. I suggest it is either deleted or replaced with a page showing more of her musical training and background. The same applies to both Willcox and, to a lesser extent, Dobson. -- Justpassinby (talk · contribs · logs) 11:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's some unsigned commentary above, so I'm not certain who's saying what. However, I would like to point out that musical ability or training is not a criterion for determining notability. So, for example, with Chloe Alper, it is irrelevant how good a bass player she may or may not be: what matters is the chart success, radio airplay, releases and touring by her teen band Period Pains and now Pure Reason Revolution. I also do not see any evidence that her article or any of the others were self-penned. While some clean-up is in order, that's a reason to clean up the pages, not to delete them. Bondegezou 15:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that if there is any content to keep here, it would perhaps be the Chloe Alper article. However, I'll come clean about my motivations for my deletion nomination - I know (as in "know personally") Jim Dobson and, having found his entry through the List of people from Oldham article, it is my strongest view that he is not of international, national or even local acclaim (I don't know him because of his work!), and does not warrant an article. Of course it's not a normal, or even suitable grounds to nominate an article, and that is why, having made cursory searches for Pure Reason Revolution elsewhere, I maintain these articles are breaches of WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Jza84 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've done further work on both Pure Reason Revolution and Chloe Alper, including adding further reliable citations. PRR clearly satisfy WP:BAND and I think there's enough evidence that Chloe Alper does too (under criteria #1, #2, #6 and #11). Reading all of the above, I think there are issues concerning Jza84's initial nomination, so I feel a speedy keep is in order for PPR and Alper, with perhaps new AfDs for Dobson and Willcox. Jza84: can you explain why you feel the PPR and Alper articles fail WP:BIO/WP:BAND in the light of the evidence given and further edits made? Bondegezou 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- if you read the 12 point "ensembles" criteria for inclusion at WP:BAND, you should be enlightened that this band does not form a notable enough entry according not to my own personal tastes and sensibilities, but according to Wikipedia convention and policy. Other than what they describe about themselves (i.e. via the three inline sources) which is in breach of WP:BAND, that there is one brief mention of them by Rick Wakeman does not constitute a gold record, or a Grammy, or an internationally acclaimed tour. If I was to remove the unsourced content (which I have the right to do so under WP:CITE), you would invariably be left with three sentences; one of which describes their style and another their influences. It is on these grounds I maintain it should go. Jza84 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'm sorry, but I don't think you've read WP:BAND correctly. For example, "an internationally acclaimed" tour is not a requirement: rather, it says, "gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources". Pure Reason Revolution qualify under criteria #1, #2, #4 and #11. I will go through these in more detail:
- "1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." - The page now cites an article about the band in The Independent, and two articles about the style of music (New Prog) in general which feature the band prominently (one in The Times and one in The Guardian). That appears to meet the criterion.
- "2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." - Their first single release, "Apprentice of the Universe", made #74 in the UK singles chart and #12 in the indie chart. Pass.
- "4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources." - The band have toured the UK and, as a support act, have toured internationally. I'm confident that information is true, however reliable sources are not given in the article. Let's say borderline on this criterion.
- "5. Has released two or more albums on a major label [...]." - The band were signed to SonyBMG, a major label, who distributed the full album The Dark Third and the previous mini-album Cautionary Tales for the Brave. Pass (unless you quibble that Cautionary Tales for the Brave does not count as a full album).
- "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." - The article describes regular radio play on a major network. Pass.
That appears to me to be ample evidence that they meet WP:BAND. If you remain concerned about unreferenced claims on the page, might I suggest that the appropriate course of action is to tag those parts of the article that need further citation and then discuss deleting material that remains unreferenced on the Talk page. I will endeavor myself to find further citations for the article content. Bondegezou 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riposte to points 5 and 11: Band has NOT released 2 albums. It has released the same album (The Dark Third) on 2 labels, and a subset of the same album onan 'EP'. 'The Dark Third' was the only album contractually created for and released by Sony/BMG. It was re-licensed to InsideOut. Can you please reference which 'Major Network' has included any PRR single on a playlist (ie placed in rotation)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassinby (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You are right that there is some overlap between the Cautionary Tales for the Brave mini-album and The Dark Third, but they are distinct releases: CTftB is not a "subset" of The Dark Third. Three of the six tracks on CTftB were included on the UK and US releases of The Dark Third, and a further CTftB track was included on the subsequent European re-release of The Dark Third. That does lessen their claim under criterion #5, although their partial fulfillment of that criterion still seems relevant to me. As for criterion #11, the article refers to radio support by various channels, including BBC Radio 1 and 2. Of course, the band need only satisfy one of the WP:BAND criteria to be notable. Since the above debate, I have done further work on both the Pure Reason Revolution and Chloe Alper articles, concentrating on adding further citations. Bondegezou 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Justpassinby: your edit history is entirely around Pure Reason Revolution and Jim Dobson and your edits, while informative, might be considered to violate Wikipedia's policy on having articles written from a neutral point of view. The nominator, Jza84, has already declared a possible conflict of interest in knowing Jim Dobson personally. I hope I am not being too forward in asking whether you too might have a particular connection to Dobson or the band? Bondegezou 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale: The Tour[edit]

Every part of the page is crystal-ballism. None of the information in this article is sourced, and in fact, the text admits that none of the information is confirmed. I should also note that the prod added was removed. Acalamari 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-existent event. JJL 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The word rumoured is used twice in the article. DCEdwards1966 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear case. No source, article qualifies everything with the word "rumor". Cogswobble talk 04:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it. Wasted Time R 13:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It even admits it's all speculation. Get rid of it. tomasz. 20:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herzliya Biennial[edit]

This art event is taking place for the first time this year in Sept 23rd, while that in itself does not mean it is not notable, the external links cite no sources other than self references. Also reading through article it does not really say why it is important or significant. However I did find 3 news reports [1] But a couple of them are quite short and read like they are promotional. Phgao 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 and G12 as no notability claimed and page reads like a blatant advert unless there have been reviews in independent notable publications about this event since it happened (which I can't completely check because I can't read Hebrew). Given references now provided my vote is now changed to Weak Keep although I do hold that the page still reads too much like an advert and would probably benefit from a cleanup and more sources. A1octopus 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this was one of notable art venues in Israel this year. I have added links to reviews of the Biennial from Haaretz paper, here is The English review from haaretz - [2] and from Jerusalem Post [3] Marina T. 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the biggest art exhibition in Israel (With Art Focus) Shmila 01:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it's a very notable event in the modern art in Israel. I think it's the first and only modern art biennial in Israel, and wikipedia has a lot of articles about other biennials in the world. after reading the Deletion policy I see no reason to delete this article. RonAlmog 21:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Ethicoaestheticist 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Globes. Espresso Addict 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firma[edit]

Non notable magazine; external links are those of the magazine Phgao 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: By applying WP:NB as an analogy (as WP:NB suggests), it appears it would fail the notability criteria. I cannot find anything further on a google search; and, as the nom indicates, the sources in the article are from the magazine itself. It appears to be advertising. Unless someone with more familiarity with the subject can demonstrate some notability, deletion appears appropriate. If not, it can be merged easily with Globes, as the newspaper under which the magazine is issued. --Mkativerata 03:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G12) as blatant advert. Mention of magazine may be made on the Globes page but it is not notable enough for its own article. A1octopus 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - radical economy magazine. Shmila 01:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important supplement of Globes. Marina T. 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Globes. This is a monthly supplement to a daily financial newspaper; its article can be a supplement to the newspaper's article. There's not enough content here to justify a separate article. Brianlucas 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a section of the Globes article per Brianlucas. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindukush Black-Robed Kafir people[edit]

Similar to the larger "group" of Hindukush Kafir people, this a racist, and ill-informed subject based on outdated source material. The only significant source used for referencing both the parent article and this is an 1896 book by a British explorer in Afghanistan. Not only is kafir an extremely POV term, it doesn't even connotate an actual ethnic group. Kafir is a pan-Islamic term that simply means "non-Muslim" (literally: ingrate). As no up to date source material even mentions a "kafir people" as an ethnic group, it does not for all intents and purposes exist. Practically all the Google hits for this terminology are for Wikipedia and its mirrors. VanTucky ^Talk 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speciate 07:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ₪ ask123 {t} 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Violates WP:POV, WP:OR, etc. Bearian 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Aarktica 20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange[edit]

Article on a non-notable interchange. Very stubby article with no references to the interchange itself. JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references outside of roadfansites, non-notable. My local freeway interchange has a name, too, but does that mean I should create an article about it? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interstate 105 (California), as it's the east end of I-105 and was built along the existing I-605 when I-105 was built. There is a reference in the form of state legislation, but it doesn't appear that the name is used by the public. If the article existed, it would probably be at I-605/I-105 interchange (see also Norwalk (LACMTA station)) or a similar form, but it doesn't need to be separate. --NE2 00:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and weak redirect to Interstate 105 (California). Does not merit its own article. Inthegloryofthelilies 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per NE2. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Neil ム 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Show (CarnEvil)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game-guide or a how-to. Also, article is unsourced and may constitute original research. Contested WP:PROD. Moonriddengirl 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are for other levels of the same game, by the same author:

-Improbcat 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per "not a game guide." Also added three related articles. Improbcat 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the three new ones for the same reason as the first. --Moonriddengirl 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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's a clear consensus here that this article is not currently appropriate. Furthermore, I'd point others to WP:RS#Extremist sources, which states "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." As it's been sufficiently demonstrated that the primary source upon which this article was created is currently viewed as bigoted, such a source cannot be the foundation of what should be the scholarly treatment of an ethnic group. — Scientizzle 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindukush Kafir people[edit]

To put it simply, this article is a synthesis original research piece of POV based on extremely out of date source material. As the article quite clearly states from the beginning, this article deals solely with the Afghani province of Nurestan prior to 1895. It was then called Kafirstan. Kafir is a racist, divisive term in Islamic cultures which literally means "ingrate," and the application of it to a supposed ethnic group is obviously POV. What's more, kafir people is not even an ethnic classification as the the article purports. It's usage within Islam simply means a non-Muslim. While this content is currently contested, the article's creator originally included descriptions of this grouping like,"Both the Kafirs and Afghans are brigands by instinct and both are careless of human life. Perhaps the Kafirs are the worst of the two in both respects, but a Afghan makes the account more than even by his added perfidy and cunning (Robertson)." Most of the passages like these are based on an 1896 book entitled The Kafirs of The Hindukush, by George Scott Robertson. Since no modern sources treat the subject of "Hindukush kafirs" as a separate ethnic group, the classification does not for all intents and purposes exist. Practically all the Google hits for this terminology are for Wikipedia and its mirrors. VanTucky ^Talk 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VanTucky, YOU ARE PURE AND SIMPLE AN IGNORAMUS

VanTucky Talk, it is not out of place to remind you that the Oxford University Press brought out newer edition of The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush (Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints) (Hardcover), Edition 1986. If the book (The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush), which is one of the main sources forming the basis for this article is outdated as alleged by you, then how come Oxford University Press should have published the book again in 1986? This clearly shows that the book is not outdated and still in wide use as a CLASSIC reference book on the people of Kafirstan (Nurestan) and the Guy who are asking for modification or deletion of the article on the plea that the Book by George Scott Robertson has become outdated now are simply ignorant of the reality and are politically motivated. The article is not POV and it does not violate NPOV policy since each and every part of the text has been supported with citations from acknowledged referential sources. So your argument is invalid and baseless. According to modern view, the word Kafir has , in all probability involved from Sanskrit Kapir which in turn involved from Sanskrit word Kapisa, which was the ancient name of the region called as Paropamisadae by the classical writers. Thus, the original form of the word Kafir was Kapir, the name of the people inhabiting the Kapisa Land. It did not have anything to do with Arabic Kufr. That usage is of later origin and was applied by the Moslem invaders for the people of this region as well as to all in Indina subcontinent since they followed religious practice different from Islam. Hope this will try to remove your ignorance, enlighten you about the historical backdrop of the word Kafir and thus help removing your misconceptions about the article TITLE: Hindukush Kafir (i.e Kapir) People. Sze cavalry01 00:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you begin by personally attacking me and clearly breeching WP:CIVIL, I will not merit your points with a response, except to say that reprinting an old work does not make it contemporary and relevant. VanTucky ^Talk 04:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONCE AGAIN: he contents of the Book “THE KAFIRS OF THE HINDUKUSH” by Sir George Scott Robertson are still very much relevant, valid and current. Howcome if the contents have become outdated and irrelevant should Oxford Univ Press bring out reprint of this CLASSIC book on great demand from its interested readerss/audience?. Sze cavalry01 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speciate 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be confirmed in modern sources into Nuristani people, who are for all intents and purposes the same ethnic group today, only Islamicized. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also like to add that this article is about the ethnic group known as the Kalash. And there is already the Wikipedia article, Kalash. Since Hindukush Kafir people contains text that's mostly copied from the dated 1896 Robertson book, there's no reason to keep its contents for a merge. Why keep its information when it holds heavy POV and comes from an outdated, unreliable source? The Robertson book employs obsolete scientific theories and, at times, drifts into the territory of scientific racism. Check out the section, "Kafir Characteristics" from the "Hindukush Kafir people" article. It contains, in my opinion, the most flagrant violations. The editor has included lines like, "The Kafirs love to fight. Their inter-tribal hatred, sometimes, goes to the limits of absurdity, thus entirely deadening their political foresight." Here are a few other lines for your reading (dis)pleasure: "The Kafirs are highly revengeful..."; "The Kafirs are remarkable for their cupidity. They can be easily bribed, can do anything for money..."; "Kafirs are extremely jealous of one another, no matter how they have intermarried. Kafir hates Kafir more than he hates Musulmans..." To me, this work speaks for itself: undoubtedly delete-worthy. ₪ ask123 {t} 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references and quotes cited in this article are from classic references which have not so far been refuted by any modern/current authority. Hence they are still valid and true as they were when first written. The deletion is wanted by a guy or two merely on political grounds (Ask123 has been using multiple Wiki ID's to confuse the readers).

Each and every quote used in this article is taken from renowned authorities on this topic. Not a single modern writer has refuted these scholarly and very informative observations by these former investigators in this field like Sir M. Elphinstone, Sir George Scott Robertson, Thomas Hungerford Holdich, John Biddulph etc. All these authorities of the past can not be termed as prejudiced and baised because ASk123 says so.

Hence if the article is to be deleted, following things must be met:

1. The person who has initiated the deletion of this article or anybody else must present or quote, at least, one reference book/article from a well known authority who has refuted the observations of Sir George Scott Robertson, or other authorities as noted above.

2. Prove that the techniques/methods of investigations used by Sir George Scott Robertson in his classic book The Kafirs of the Hindukush" were obsolete scientific theories and MUST cite at least one knowledgeable authority who claims that the exploratory methods/techniques used by Robertson or for that matter by M. Elphinstone, Thomas Hungerford Holdich, John Biddulph are unscientific, outdated or otherwise questionable.

It is not out of place to remind the Wikipedia readers here that the Oxford University Press brought out newer edition of The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush (Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints) (Hardcover), Edition 1986. [4]. If the book (The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush) is outdated as alleged by Ask123, then how come Oxford University Press should have published the book again in 1986? This clearly shows that the book is not outdated and still in wide use as a CLASSIC reference book on the people of Kafirstan (Nurestan) and the Guy who are asking for modification or deletion of the article on the plea that the Book by George Scott Robertson has become outdated now are simply ignorant of the reality and are politically motivated.

Most of the material used/cited in this article has also been earlier also used in Encylopedia Britannica, Classic Encylopedia, and numerous later well known writers like Donald N. Wilber, William Kerr Fraser-Tytler and others. Many writers have termed The Kafirs of the Hindukush by George Scott Robertson as a CLASSIC WORK. The article is being killed by one guy who has created and used many different user's names in the Talk Page to get rid of two section: 1. Kafir Women (2) The Kafir Characterics as they now appear in this article. Essentially, it is ONE and the same guy and he has created several different ID to confuse the Wiki readers and is now trying to use the force of those different user ID's to have this article deleted. Impartial/detached readers of the Wikipedia are encouraged to participate, read the entire talk page impartially, take note of the authorities whose views have been quoted in the article and then come forward to defeat the political motive of one guy who does not like this article for personal reasons.

The artcle fairly and equitably talks both of the weaknesess as well as the strengths of the Kafir society and therefore is more balanced than the one appearing in Classic Encylopedia or even in the Encylopedia Britannica, which Encylopedias talk only of weaknesses of the Kafir character.

Sze cavalry01 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sze_cavalry01, DO NOT ATTACK ME PERSONALLY (especially not on this page, which is only for discussing the deletion of a particular article)! I have not edited either Hindukush Kafir people or Talk:Hindukush Kafir people with any accounts or IPs other than ask123. On the other hand, you, Sze_cavalry01, have repeatedly used IP 76.105.50.27 to make changes. If you check the edit history for Hindukush Kafir people, you will see this to be the case. If you have a charge against me, say it specifically. Tell everyone the account name or the IP address you "think" I've been using. I challenge you to give the specifics because there aren't any. And I do encourage everyone to view and compare the contributions made by Sze_cavalry01 (contributions) and IP 76.105.50.27 (contributions). You will find that they make changes in tandem, on the same articles and often with the same text in the edit summary. You see, Sze_cavalry01, the beauty of Wikipedia is that everything's documented. It makes it darn near impossible to falsely accuse someone! ₪ ask123 {t} 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge or Severely edit the obviously unacceptable terms used in this article were acceptable when the region was named and therefore should the names of the region, people, etc. should used at the very least for historical reference. However, what I seriously have a problem with is the characteristics paragraphs(?) of this page. Either they are quotes from another text and should be edited to reflect such, POV statements that should be deleted all together or just plagurism. I can't see much use for the language that is being used to describe the people in this manner. Otherwise, the article seems to site one book for the most part. Of course, there are many other issues with this article that can easily be fixed by hacking large chunks of POV paragraphs. The result may be a long-stub like article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely. To begin with, there is no such thing as "Hindukush Kafir people". This is an archaic ethnographic artifact based on religious bias and sheer ignorance of outsiders. Secondly, there are countless unencyclopedic and unscientific absurdities in the old account on which the text is based; I wonder how this stuff has remained on Wikipedia for so long. Now, here is the article with the right sort of information and which should be expanded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuristani_people. KelilanK18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides the mind-boggling NPOV issues, this article is basically a random collection of quotations from a single published source. From Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources:

Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches or lengthy quotations, etc. (emphasis mine)

Seeing as the source is over a century old and of questionable accuracy, and there are no other sources that verify the information, I think it is safe to say that this article is not of encyclopedic value. To those who claim that the article should be kept because of its "historical significance", consider adding it to Wikisource or creating a stand-alone article on George Scott Robertson and include a section dedicated to his book. But for the love of all that is holy, don't present the ramblings of an ethnocentric British soldier as verifiable fact. As it stands, this article reads like a textbook of "How Not To Do Anthropology".--Dstemmer 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jobing.com

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, effectively a withdrawn nomination. Remaining article content issues may be addressed through normal processes. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jobing.com[edit]

I am proposing a Delete & Redirect to Jobing.com Arena. This page was a redirect to Jobing.com Arena, but that was removed today, and content was added to the page. Reading through the article, it seems like a big advertisement for the company. I think the redirect should be reapplied. I would have just done it, but I think we should do this formally to prevent any more situations in the future. Rjd0060 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that there have been substantial (positive) edits to this article since I opened this AfD. - Rjd0060 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nom, I am surprised and impressed of the number of changes and references added to this article. I believe that it may be suitable to keep now. - Rjd0060 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student at ASU, creating this article as part of a project for a class. There are a number of similar entries, such as articles on employment website Monster.com, so if you delete this one, please delete those other entries as well. User:Phanavan 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to WP:WAX in reference to your comment. - Rjd0060 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used published stories, in addition to company information, to write what I feel is an objective article- including one front-page story from the New York Times; Rather than simply deleting information about a company, can you help me change? User:Phanavan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!! --Phanavan 23:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs rewritten in places, and better cites, but the indications are that notability can be established. It seems a bit perverse to suggest that the Arena is notable, but the organisation that named it isn't. So perhaps this AfD is a bit quick off the mark. The problem with the NY Times references are you need to register to read them. Links like that are discouraged. Cites that are links through the company's own website also don't really count as reliable third party cites, even if they in turn refer to other websites. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly permit references to articles requiring registration--or even payment--we encourage the use of free sources, certainly--& the NYT is free now-- but we even more encourage the use of the best and most appropriate source for the subject. (though not for external links--see WP:EL) Material from a company's web site can be used for routine facts, like where their branch offices are. All of this can and should be discussed on the article talk page in any case. (as can the real problem, excessive detail about internal corporate affairs and the merger with other small companies.)--but:

Keep as the company seems important enough for notability.DGG (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. for failing to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. --Aarktica 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indytronic Records[edit]

Apparently unsalvageably non-neutral puff-piece for a record label. (Strip out the advertorial and all that's left is "Indytronic Records is a record label".) While I can find catalogues etc to show that the label exists, I can find no reliable sources at all for any information about the label. If anyone can find some reliable sources, consider this nomination withdrawn, as I think in general record labels larger than the "guy in a basement with a CD burner" level should have their own Wikipedia pages, but I really can't find anything with which to expand this. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the 82 distinct hits I found for the company, I found a couple of press releases, but nothing that would stand as a reliable source to verify notability per WP:CORP. WP:MUSIC is helpful here, too, in telling us that an indie label is considered major if it has "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". This does not seem to be the case. --Moonriddengirl 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Moonriddengirl. Notability doesn't seem to be there yet. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Indytronic Records has been around for 3 years and it is still going strong. This is an informative article about the label. As far as there not being any sources, I am the CEO of the company and I am the source. I can confirm that everything on the page is true and accurate. Please do not delete it. Thank you. Soundboyx 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable resources. -- Whpq 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Ford[edit]

All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed Hirolovesswords 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks to be a hoax and no verifiable assertion of notability. --Mkativerata 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- for now... I see nothing on the talk page, and no explanation of how this 18 month or so old article is fake, and how it has existed within a music community without notice... can someone provide a better argument that it is "fake", ghits for eg, a discussion of it somewhere, anything? If no attempt has been made, this is premature.JJJ999 00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lubricated Goat. Comment:It took me less than five minutes to find a site on a group called the Dubrovniks, which the subject played for. In that article was this:"Brett Ford (drums; ex-Kryptonics, Lubricated Goat)". Let's do some research before we brand something a hoax.--Sethacus 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Understood, but the second paragraph of the article needs to be referenced or deleted. --203.129.46.76 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's redirected, sourcing won't matter. There won't be an article. Only if it's merged or kept will that be a concern.--Sethacus 01:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted the second paragraph, as per WP:BLP. Cogswobble talk 04:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More musiccruft. Twenty Years 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not appear to be notable apart from the bands he has played in. Being part of a notable group does not in itself make you notable. (I'm not necessarily passing judgment on the notability of the bands, that's another discussion.) Brianlucas 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one of the related articles as the subject indeed has had connections with notable subjects of articles - outright delete is not that useful on such a issue - adequate research and appropriate connection with one of the bands he was associated with would make sense Satu Suro 05:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. Keb25 00:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brett Ford is an influential figure in the 1980s Sydney music scene; the article might not reflect the level of his influence but he is nevertheless a key figure in this scene and as such is deserving of his own separate article.--ollee 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Heiman[edit]

I don't know arts, but this seems not notable and like an ad. Xiner (talk, email) 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable per WP:BIO, and I can't find anything really noteworthy through Google or Google News. Jayden54 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not everyone in the world is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, and certainly not this gal.TruthGal 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just H 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known israli photographer. Everyone in the art scene knows her. 1300 google Shmila 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Hard to imagine everyone in the art scene has even had a chance to know her, since her first and only New York solo art exhibition took place... this week.[5]. Say... this Wiki entry was created just a week or so before that... What a delightful coincidence! Here's a test I use to see if a person is notable - rather than just Google the name, I do a Google search to try to find a basic biography to see where or when the subject was born (it's often the first line of a bio) "Ansel Adams was born in"[6] gets 88 hits. "Michal Heiman was born in"[7] gets zero hits. TruthGal 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She Was the most known photographer in Israel while the 80s, before the internet. Shmila 18:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, had only 1,300 Google hits. Davidpdx 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Heiman[edit]

this article uses self refs, and although it is not a speedy candidate, it does not seem notable enough and thus i send it to Afd. It is, I believe contested by the creator, and may have been created before, as the editor says "notable again, check HE wikipedia" in the edit summary. Phgao 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I'm not sure now, as although it does have a HE article, that article seems short to me, and I could not find any newspaper articles through a Google News search, but of course that only searches English news; and therefore can not be representative of all news on her. I add that I just checked and the article was deleted in 2006, but that does not set a precedent for this Afd. Phgao 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the last revision before my nom. [8] Phgao 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this woman is a renowned artist, her Hebrew and English wiki articles are verified and notable, she presented in Galleries all over the world, much more unlikely persons have articles in this encyclopedia. Marina T. 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A quick google search shows plenty of sites and articles to prove notabilty.Ridernyc 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep one of the more famous artists in Israel. Took part in the "documenta". It's crazy to delete her. Shmila 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Definitely meets WP:BIO, just needs sources. I'll tag it. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. "one of the more famous artists in Israel" -name another... "It's crazy to delete her" --Call me crazy. "just needs sources" ---Meaningless comment which could be made for any nn subject. Tiptopper 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Official participation in Documenta is, I think, sufficient to establish notability. The article now has references to books discussing her work.--Ethicoaestheticist 11:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be heavily edited for formatting, POV and WP:PEACOCK, but a Documenta showing satisfies notability. Freshacconci | Talk 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Dawg[edit]

Suggestion deletion because the article violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and fails WP:BIO as a one-hit wonder with no lasting notability. It also appears that the author of this article is simultaneously trying to vandalize it, I gathered from the talk page that this person has registered numerous accounts for mixed purposes of self-promotion and vandalism. Case in point, I just removed an inappropriate link to PENIS SHEATHS that went unnoticed for over 6 months. Put this one out of its misery already. Burntsauce 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:MUSIC by having a charted single. DCEdwards1966 02:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ditto with DCEdwards, also please note that people's personal opinions whether they like a certain performer or not is not a valid reason for article deletion. Besides, we've got protection policies to block this page from vandals and sock puppetry. --Andrewlp1991 05:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC. The one hit managed to peak in the top 20. Not to break OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we do have articles on other one-hit wonders with questionable lasting notability. Deleting for the sake of controlling vandalism isn't a feasible alternative. Not that it needs it, but I'll be adding a Tufts University feature story on him to the refs.--Sethacus 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject passes WP:MUSIC with a charted single, like it or not. RFerreira 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Co.[edit]

hardly any context Shawnpoo 22:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of content is not a criteria for deletion. This company is publicly traded with a market capitalization over 1 billion dollars, and plenty of reliable coverage as per WP:CORP ([9]). For icing on the cake, they are even listed in two S&P indexes: S&P 600 SmallCap and S&P 1500 Super Comp. In short, meets WP:CORP completely. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per CosmicPenguin. Sure, it's two sentences long, but that's not a good argument in AfD. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep seems to be the definition of a notable company. May need some cleanup, but that's hardly a reason to nominate for AfD, much less to delete. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Marine[edit]

This article is almost entirely original research; with two exceptions, it draws connections between different sci-fi military groups and ORingly calls them "space marines." Imperial Stormtroopers = space marines? Riiight. Additionally, there is no assertion of notability -- the article is essentially, "Books and game have marines in space", and does not attempt to answer the "So what?" question. --EEMeltonIV 04:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', well known science fiction motif, I'm preety sure I've seen the term used in some Science fiction reference books. --Eldarone 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If it's so well-known (and I suppose you're implying notable), why doesn't this 3.5-year-old article have a citation to any reliable sources discussing this motif? --EEMeltonIV 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Unless you have access to a copy of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, or similar reference readily available, then it's hard to cite. SF References are hard to come by, and the only ones I know of are in University libraries. --Eldarone 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. JJL 00:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might need cleaning up, but "space marines" are a pretty substantial part of sci-fi. Cogswobble talk 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not so much OR as just unreferenced. As sf is not without its share of critical commentary, it is likely any problem statements can be sourced (including connecting the stormtrooper/marine concept). --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete space marine as spaceshipborne troops is too vague... the Starship Toopers Mobile Infantry, Star Wars Stormtroopers, , or whatever could be covered. 132.205.44.5 03:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expandBlindsnyper 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete → AA ^(talk) — 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field and Stream (band)[edit]

Delete fails WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 21:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gakusha 21:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND STORMTRACKER 94 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) Doesn't claim notability per WP:Music. A1octopus 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was unanimous keep. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of conservation areas in the United Kingdom[edit]

It is with a heavy heart that I nominate this article for deletion. Simply, the scope of the article is so huge that I do not think it is ever going to be completed; the original author got as far as listing 256 conservation areas in four counties - out of at least 8000 in the whole country. Simply, I think the list is too long and unmaintainable to ever amount to a complete and useful article. DWaterson 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its easy to be daunted by the enormity of the task, however I think that the topic is important enough to make an attempt. KTo288 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everything in Wikipedia is an ongoing project. It's hard to imagine any article being "completed." It's certainly an encyclopedic topic. --Oakshade 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the nominator's concern, but I feel that this is a question of article organisation which is better suited to the talk page than an AfD debate. There isn't really a reason for deletion here. The list has a very specific, objective, and verifiable criteria for inclusion. Yes, it is a work in progress - but so is Wikipedia as a whole. If the list becomes unmanageably large, it can be separated into lists by region. Actually, since all the counties listed thus far are in England, it could be moved to List of conservation areas in England, but this is an editing issue. Again, I sympathise with the nominator but deletion is inappropriate in this instance. --TreeKittens 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it is common procedure in Wikipedia to split huge lists into smaller ones, either geogrpahically, or time-wise, or alphabetically. CG 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Wikipedia is an ongoing project and won't be perfect. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. If this list gets unwieldy, as is suggested by the title and the number of conservation areas, then it can be split. Actually, it could be split right now into lists for just those four counties, and then it could mention that the list is incomplete. Either way, deletion is overkill for addressing the intended scope of this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Rgds, --Trident13 13:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - size is not a factor. (Look at Wikipedia as a whole - it's a huge undertaking, but we took it on anyways). The Transhumanist 21:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Aarktica 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BYOA[edit]

This was an effort to create an article with minimal significance. I appreciate the effort, but with so few editors jumping in to help here, the article will remain very limited. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're not really giving a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for this project, there's plenty of time for it to grow. Do you have a concern of notability, verifiability, etc. that would be a reason to delete? --UsaSatsui 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sir. What I mean when I say "minimal significance" IS "lack of notability". This is a valid reason. It's not an encyclopedic article. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know. A google search for 'BYOA' gets 50,000 ghits[10] while the more restrictive 'BYOA access' gets 18,000 ghits[11], which suggests that the term has wide name recognition. --Malcolmxl5 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep. I see that BYOA even has two sites that use the term in the context of the article. The rest are varied. They range from "Bring Your Own Advil" to "Bavaria Yacht Owners Association". So I do concede that the term, as it's described in the article, is marginally valid. I hadn't googled it before, so now I'm on the fence. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite to show that this is more typically a term referring to connecting to online services like AOL and Compuserve using a local broadband provider, per the "BYOA access" search above.--SarekOfVulcan 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep by WP:SNOW as notable and fixable. Bearian 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roach clip[edit]

An unreferenced article which is the top hit on Google for "roach clip". Reads as part original research, part slang dictionary definition and part howto. This was tagged as unreferenced in December 2006 and still lacks any sources. Cruftbane 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [12] [13] I'll add these to the article regardless of the outcome. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs cleanup, not deletion. --UsaSatsui 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. Seems a reasonable article to me. DWaterson 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the best we can do for sourcing is a couple of on-line dictionaries then please do delete this and let Wiktionary have it. Burntsauce 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably hundreds of uses in literature of film to discuss. DGG (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might need cleaning up, but that's no reason to delete. Cogswobble talk 04:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems this article has been quoted and attributed by a newspaper here (paragraph 3). Google books etc. is looking promising - I'm looking for something substantial... --TreeKittens 05:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no question that this article needs improvement, but this is not the improvement drive. I don't think anyone questions the encyclopedic merit of the subject itself. RFerreira 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air brake (road vehicle)[edit]

Verbatim copy of chapter 5 of the California Commercial Driver Handbook, therefore violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook and possibly copyright DES 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lead paragraph was the only part of the article that was not tainted from the beginning by copyright violation, so I left that, but removed the bulk of the article. I think it's a decent stub. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that although an early edit by Interiot (talk · contribs) asserted that it was in the public domain, the PDF online clearly includes a copyright notice for the California DMV. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's been reduced to a stub removing copyvio. DWaterson 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (if for no other reason that it'll explain what the roadsigns that say "Air Brakes Prohibited" are referring to), but someone needs to selectively delete the copyvio tainted revisions. humblefool ® 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Consensus seems to be that relegation to history is generally sufficient (especially in this sort of case, where there is no economic factor). The backlog at WP:CP is so great I'd rather someone spent time dealing with more pressing issues. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable enough to have its own article. The fact that it contained a copyvio (which has subsequently been removed along with corrections to it) does not make the subject undeserving of an article. --Athol Mullen 22:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning change ringing[edit]

The article is entirely instructional. TheOtherSiguy 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Change ringing or delete. Too much of an instructional guide. DWaterson 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DWaterson. There is some useful information that could be included in a paragraph in Change ringing, but lines like "The ringer will now learn..." make this step-by-step seem like something borrowed from elsewhere. The concept of alternating a pattern 6 bells by ringing them 6! different ways (1x2x3x4x5x6 or 720) is interesting, with its variation of 123456, 132465, 312456, 321465, etc, and well covered in the main article. Some of the info here about the practice might be useful there. Mandsford 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelle Primeau[edit]

I don’t know if this is about some backyard wrestlers or E-fed wrestlers, but I do know it’s not about Pelle Primeau (a real wrestler who performs for Ring of Honor). Instead of just making the article about Primeau, I am nominating for deletion because Primeau himself hasn’t really done anything notable yet to warrant an article. Nenog 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a compilation of something...but the article doesn't give any indication of what that would be. No sources. No notability. GaryColemanFan 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like total nonsense to me. I don't watch ROH (since it's only on DVD, and now PPV in the US), but it's obvious that this article is not about Pelle. TJ Spyke 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and shouldn't it have been speedied? Patent nonsense if ever I've seen it. Nosleep1234 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is just nonsense. - Eggy49er 00:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Nikki311 02:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - nonsense. Davnel03 11:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Davnel03 11:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:N. → AA ^(talk) — 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HV InfoTech[edit]

Seems to be an advertisement Anarchia 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely advertisement, non-notable company. Vaguely 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is spam. --Gavin Collins 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TrueOrigin Archive[edit]

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

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

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

Note to the closing adminstrator: Profg has engaged in apparent canvassing in this AfD. See [14] [15] [16] [17] which includes a number of users who have called for keeping below such as RucasHost. JoshuaZ 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator: As evidenced by the fact that a number of users whom I requested in a neutral way (you can see that's true by clicking on the links above) to look at this article and the AfD have called for deleting the article, this is patently untrue, and is another example of stalking and harassment by JoshuaZ. --profg ^Talk 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, just as notable as its counterpart, as noted here. Literally hundreds of article and links, and referenced in relevant online literature. In existence for 15 years. Recommend giving article more of a chance than 2 minutes (which is what happened here) to be edited and improved. --profg 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it uses itself as the majority of it's references.Ridernyc 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Great reference for silly Creationist arguments. It is notable, probably not as well-done as AnswersinGenesis, but it's a great location to find rebuttals to TalkOrigins. However, the article itself is poorly written, external links are kind of a repeat of itself, and it needs to somewhat resemble Answers in Genesis, which discusses that website better. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Changed from above. I'm now unconvinced of notability. Points by MastCell and JoshuaZ are what convinced me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm starting to get somewhat uncomfortable being the only non-Creationist opposed to deletion. The points by MastCell and JoshuaZ are valid. Unless someone shows a better level of notability, namely at the level of AnswerinGenesis, I'm going to have to change my stand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google finds about 13,200 links and non-link references to TrueOrigin on other web sites. NCdave 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obvious from his indentation, above, but if you look at the comment dates you'll see that Orangemarlin changed his recommendation from Keep to Strong Delete just one hour after, in answer to his question, I added the comment informing him that Google finds a whopping 13,200 references and links to TrueOrigin from other web sites. That seems odd to me. NCdave 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I don't think google hits prove squat. I didn't even read what you wrote, because it wasn't relevant to my powerful and awesome ability to make up my own mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even read it? Then why did you ask for it? NCdave 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the Talk Origins Archive has multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails WP:WEB. If someone can find reliable sources that talk about it I will consider changing my position. JoshuaZ 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here you go, JoshuaZ. These are some books which reference the TrueOrigin web site, or material found on it:

"How Now Shall We Live?" by Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey, p. 499
"The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaeology, and Philosophy Have Proven the Existence of God," by John F. Ashton, Michael Westacott, p. 129
"Insect Evolutionary Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society," by Mark Fellowes, Graham Holloway, Jens Rolff, p. 395
"Science and Evolution," by Charles W. Colson, Nancy Pearcey, p.183
"Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny," by Theodore A. Green,p. 212
"Researching Anthropology On The Internet," by David Lee Carlson, Wadsworth, p. 58
"Darwİnİzmİn İnsanliĞa GetİrdİĞİ Belalar," by Harun Yahya, p. 183
"Natural Theology," by William Paley, p. 290
"The Evolution Deceit," by Harun Yahya, p. 273
"Darwİnİzmİn Kanli İdeolojİsİ FaŞİzm," by Harun Yahya, p. 235
"Ara GeÇİŞ AÇmazi," by Harun Yahya, p.232
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design," by Jonathan Wells
"Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design," by Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross

NCdave 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are non-trivial independent reliable sources. Here we go in order.

How Now Shall We Live? - the entire mention is that a certain essay has a copy there. In what is essentially an apologetic book. Appears to be more of a polemic than a reliable source.
The Big Argument - same thing as above
Now we get to an actual paper. Actual science paper referencing a page in TrueOrigin (actually the same essay by Jonathan Wells as mentioned by "ow Now Shall We Live? - simply using it as a note that certain types of creationist arguments exist and not for anything else.
Next another reference by the same people (Nancy Pearcey and Charles W. Colson) to the same paper as from the first one.
Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny again just a minor reference to a report, and the book in question appears to be published by a vanity press anyways (I could be wrong but it looks like that to me).
Researching Anthropology On The Internet - uses it as an example of a creationist website along with many others, nothing more.
Next is by Harun Yahya(Oktar) - another creationist citing them. Harun Yahya is not a reliable source as you can see from reading our article on him. He is a holocaust denier whose views can be summarized as something like "The Holocaust didn't happen and the Nazis did it because they believed in evolution". That might be actually more coherent than his description. In any event, not a reliable source and not used as more than a minor citation.
Natural Theology I was a bit surprised to see this on the list since William Paley died in 1905. Apparently an updated version of his book includes a list of modern creationist websites at the end which includes TrueOrigins.
Next are two more incidental mentions by Harun Yahya.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design - the only mentions in that book if I recall is Wells citing his own essay on their.
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design Oh, wow. We've now hit something that might be a reliable source. That's a rarity in this list. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly ( the text isn't online and I read the book a few years ago) Forrest and Gross briefly mention True Origins as an example of how some proponents of Intelligent Design also put out essays on avowedly creationist websites. Wow, so we now have one minor factoid about the website from 13 books. That was a good use of my time. In the future could you please look at the sources before giving them to us to look at? JoshuaZ 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems as notable as Talk Origins. In fact, Talk Origins links to and has responses to True Origins. Jinxmchue 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Miserably fails WP:WEB, WP:ORG, or for that matter whichever set of notability criteria you choose to apply to it.A self-referential rehash of the website which provides no secondary sources, independent commentary, analysis, or anything that would make it encyclopedic. Delete unless non-trivial independent, reliable secondary source coverage can be produced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in the first place, but even if it were, comparing this to TalkOrigins Archive is ludicrous - that site has been noted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Smithsonian, Scientific American, mentioned in college textbooks, etc. This one is not in the same league notability-wise. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think I've located a page that reveals compliance with WP:WEB, namely, this page concerning criticisms of trueOrigins. It seems like there's indeed been multiple, "reliable" published works criticizing various things on TrueOrigins. Why this isn't mentioned in the article, I don't know, because it probably should be. Homestarmy 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's in reference to people criticizing Humphreys' views which were not published on the True Origins Archive anyways, just Humphrey's response. Even if Humphreys' original comments had been put on TrueOrigins, that would simply be a possible argument to note that at Russell Humphreys. JoshuaZ 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed; these are criticisms of Russell Humphreys which happen to be collected on TrueOrigins - not evidence that the site is independently notable. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further follow-up, none of those criticisms appear to be from reliable sources either anyways. So we really don't have a leg to stand on. JoshuaZ 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria. Yilloslime (t) 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (changed from "Delete.") Herculean efforts by profg, NCdave, OrangeMarlin and others have failed to find any sources establishing notability as defined by WP:N and WP:WEB.Yilloslime (t) 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: See, this is what I'm talking about. Most of what is being discussed here are issues for improving the article, and should be discussed on the Talk page, not on an AfD page that was posted TWO MINUTES after this article was created. I've never seen even a stub AfD'd two minutes after it was created; in fact, most stubs are tagged asking for editors to help improve them. Seriously, why not KEEP this article for at least a week or two, try to help the WP project by improving it, and if it's hopelessly non-improveable and non-notable, toss it on Darwin's dustbin of history? --profg 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources is a reason to delete, and I looked for additional sources before I made my comment. I can't speak for others. But the sourcing necessary simply doesn't exist. JoshuaZ 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If true, that will be borne out in time. Putting this up for deletion 1-2 minutes after it was first created when it's obvious this isn't a disruptive article is ridiculous. It almost seems to me that some people are trying to get a quick delete even though the article doesn't meet the criteria for that (thus, they are using this to get around that fact). Jinxmchue 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - This isn't a speedy deletion by any stretch of the imagination. This discussion won't even be closed for another 5 days at least. And in the meantime, you are welcome to look for additional sources. And you can be assured that you will not be the only person looking for sources. I'm currently looking at their page to try to find a way to contact TrueOrigins to ask if their are any sources they are aware of (at present I'm having some difficulty finding anything other than the feedback button which appears to be only rarely payed attention to and isn't precisely appropriate for this given their feedback guidelines). But again, there appears to be very little to go on, even AIG's webpage only has a handful of mentions of TrueOrigins, and even then they are all of the it-exists form. JoshuaZ 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks likeyou can contact them here --profg 03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, that appears to be the contact page for http://www.lonestarwebworks.com . How is that connected? JoshuaZ 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say this was a speedy deletion. I said this seems to have been done to get around the speedy deletion criteria as the article doesn't fit any of them. I just can't think of any other reason for someone to have nominated this article so quickly after it was created. Within two minutes. Hardly enough time to thoroughly check for reliable sources. Jinxmchue 07:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD nomination certainly was rapid. That said, the burden is generally on the creator of an article (or supporters of its existence) to be able to provide evidence of notability at the time the article is created. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I did in about two minutes. It eventually was rewritten and moved to a better article. I can't find anything to back this site's notability up (IE, Reliable Sources). Spryde 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're apparently using this page instead of the talk page to discuss the article, here's some "multiple, independent reliable sources" that link to the True.Origin Archive:

Professor David A. Plaisted, Dept. of Computer Science, UNC-Chapel Hill: "Links to Some Other Creation Sites"
Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D., City of Hope National Medical Center: "Just a Few Links"
Professor James R. Hofmann (and others), California State University Fullerton, "Philosophy/Liberal Studies 333: Evolution and Creation"
Kevin Henke Ph.D., University of Kentucky - Geological Sciences, "Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology"
Geoscience Research Institute, "Fundamentalist - Organizations"
Professor David L. Carlson, Texas A&M Department of Anthropology, "Physical Anthropology"
Professor James F. McGrath, Butler University Department of Philosophy & Religion, Religion & Science (RL 371): "Evolution, Creationism and Design"

I'm just throwing some out there that I hit with a quick search. There are criticisms there, supports, straight links, etc. But I believe there is at least notability, for it to be linked to by reliable sources. --profg 04:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Even with these links, it still fails WP:WEB. Yilloslime (t) 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Yillo here. The first two links are merely lists that include TrueOrigins on lists of creationist pages (nor for that matter are either of those links reliable sources but rather private webpages). The third link appears to contain a link to TrueOrigins as one of many creationist sites noted in what appears to be a course syllabus. The fourth link is a criticism of an essay on the site and is hosted on a geocities website. Hardly reliable. The fifth link is again a page that simply includes TrueOrigins as a link on a list of creationist pages. The sixth link may arguably be a reliable source and is by a anthropology professor at Texas A&M. However, the only additional sentence of content there other than the existence of TrueOrigins is that the website "takes direct aim at Talk.Origins" which isn't a whole lot of content (hardly a non-trivial source). The final link again simply contains a link among a list of links. None of these are independent, non-trivial reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable creationist site. Widely referred to , as it ought to be , because it contains a collection of relative straightforward, intelligent, understandable documentation of that point of view--to the extent that it depends on their interpretations of science. DGG (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If it's widely referred to, I have no problem keeping it. I just haven't seen evidence thus far that it is widely referred to by reliable, notable sources. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment It is not that widely referred to nor is it at all prominent in the creationist movement. For example, it gets a total about 10 mentions on AIG's webpage (see [18] [19] ) and none from the ICR [20] [21]. AIG is a notable creationist ministry, as is the ICR. Both have multiple independent, reliable sources. Similarly for Kent Hovind's ministry. True Origins is not notable. There's simply nothing we can write about it other than its existence that complies with WP:V. JoshuaZ 23:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Josh and MastCell. Jim62sch 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See wikipedia's own definitions of notability for the purpose of the relevant criteria for keep or not: "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations....."

..And certainly I have seen that it is prominently notable among those who despise it. Those who so vehemently object here to its inclusion are testament to their own desire to reduce its visibility, because they have noted TrueOrigins.com most emphatically. So they are another evidence in favor of its inclusion. TruthTeller 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC) — TruthTeller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The above !vote from "TruthTeller" was actually added by User:24.127.209.207. It's the first edit from that IP. TruthTeller has 3 edits. Yilloslime (t) 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not rise to the standards of WP:WEB. ScienceApologist 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources in the article are from the website itself. The additional sources offered in this discussion don't appear to meet the reliable sources guideline, and my google searching didn't turn up any better sources. No prejudice against recreation if the site becomes more notable at a later time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a great website, and is certainly very notable. I was actually just there earlier today reading an essay by Dr. Jerry Bergman on the creation of pathogenic viruses. It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated, I can't think of any good reason to delete. --RucasHost 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh say, like the complete absence of reliable sources that might show it meets WP:WEB. A little AGF might be in order, just maybe? Especially given your editing history and user page. You know, glass houses, stone throwing and all that... Oh and while we're at it- a website being useful or "great" has nothing to do with notability. I visit a lot of websites daily that are great and useful, that doesn't mean they should have articles. JoshuaZ 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is a danger that liking something may lead one down the garden path. ScienceApologist 03:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is just as much danger that not liking something may lead one down a similar path. --profg ^Talk 05:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, please be careful not to attack fellow editors, especially for something that has nothing to do with the present discussion. WP:NPA states, "some types of comments are never acceptable," including "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done... It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Please, always assume good faith. Thank you. --profg ^Talk 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sigh, I think Profg in this case you may want to a) reread my comment or b) reread NPA (including the section you just quoted). It might in fact be best to do both. JoshuaZ 14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh, I think JoshuaZ in this case you may want to a) reread your comment ("Especially given your editing history and user page") or b) reread NPA in light of that comment (especially the section I quoted). It might in fact be best to do both. --profg ^Talk 16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't that complicated. The user in question said "It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated" which is a failure to assume AGF. My observation is that given the user's own statements if we start not assuming AGF it hits him pretty badly. Since I am, of course, assuming AGF, I haven't concluded the user, or any other user in this discussion is calling for keeping or deletion based on their POV. Now, if you are still convinced that I'm somehow magically engaging in personal attacks here, I suggest you continue the discussion on my talk page, since this is rapidly becoming irrelevant to the issue at hand- whether or not there are reliable sources that discuss the website in question. JoshuaZ 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this was a case of not AGF, rather it was drawing the obvious conclusion from the fact that the AfD was posted just two minutes after the article it proposed to delete. Two minutes is not enough time to have even carefully read the article, let along the subject of the article. Perhaps the editor who proposed the article for deletion was already thoroughly familiar with the subject of the article, but, if so, that, itself, is strong evidence of notability. NCdave 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to as notable as ICR, AiG or AiC. Maybe if it lasts another fifteen years someone might be bothered to write an independent non-trivial review, but until then there's no good reason to keep this article around. – ornis ⚙ 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable person gets into an argument with an un-named relative, posts his side of the argument online, and then makes it "a web page in hopes of reaching a few other readers." Nothing follows that establishes notability. No numbers. No sponsors. No references in any major publications? Randydeluxe 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is not notable? I thought it was. Lets find some references to show that it is.--Filll 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete completely inadequate references, the only non-self reference seems to be a self published post from a talk.origins newsgroup of Feb. 17, 1999 – that does not look credible as a reliable source. Better secondary sources needed. .. dave souza, talk 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irony To all of you darwinists who hate creationism and would love nothing more than to delete this article. You might actually be helping the creationists at TrueOrigin Archive, you see when people search for "True Origins" in Google, the TrueOrigin Archive comes up as the first result; however, Wikipedia gets very good search placement and if this article stays there's a good chance it could replace the actual website for the first spot in Google. So by deleting this article you're getting people to go to a site on creationism instead of a Wikipedia article about a site on creationism. --RucasHost 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The deletion debate is about notability vs non-notability, and the availability of reliable sources, related to this one web site. It doesn't have anything to do with hating creationism. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with your liking creationism, either, and that your vote is related to your ability to find reliable sources that show notability for this one web site. If anyone is voting on this one web site based on how much they like or dislike the general field of study, then they're completely missing the point of the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now THAT is funny, considering most of the "votes" here. --profg ^Talk 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm really confused. I looked at your vote, for instance, and it didn't even address the question of whether or not there are reliable sources. Are you accusing yourself of POV voting? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Profg and Rucas- this is precisely why I called for AGF earlier. Profg, you seem to be acting almost as bad a Rucas. As to accusations that there are "POV-warriors" here calling for deletion, note that Filll who is often accused of being some sort of evilutionist was in favor of considering keeping, as was Orangemarlin. This isn't a deletion being orchestrated by an evolutionist cabal. At minimum, if there is a cabal here, it is a damn incompetent one. JoshuaZ 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Evilutionist I'm not sure if you misspelled that intentionally or not, but I am not going to use it widely. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digression: Evil-ution is a charming coinage that dates back at least to Inherit the Wind. It probably goes back even further. Of course, history repeats itself. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement on that statement here. --profg ^Talk 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no votes, it's a discussion, or at least it's supposed to be. --RucasHost 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher's comment is just as valid without the use of some pretentious neologism like not-vote or ~vote or whatever is the current style du jour. In fact, the non-voting nature of the matter makes Fisher's point all the stronger. JoshuaZ 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while I fully support Wikipedia's model of consensus for discussion rather than majority voting, I find constructions like !vote to be confusing for users who aren't experienced Wikipedians, and I try to keep my comments simple enough that users who aren't members of the cabal can still understand and participate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "irony" in the leadoff statement here is predicated on the assumption that everyone's top priority is to advance a specific POV above all else. I'm fully aware of the power of Wikipedia's search-engine ranking, but you'll notice that most of the comments have to do with notability, not hatred of creationism. The only irony here is that User:RucasHost's comment says far more about how s/he views Wikipedia than it does about anything else. MastCell ^Talk 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no dog in this fight, and I find young-earth creationist arguments unpersuasive, but there really is no question that the TrueOrigin website easily meets Wikipedia's notability critera. Google finds over 8300 links to articles on the TrueOrgin.org web site from other web sites. NCdave 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My google search only yielded 177 links, many of them from the same websites, and most of them from blogs. How did you do yours? Either way, google hits/links does not establish notability. Yilloslime (t) 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did mine like this, which yielded about 1000 hits, but I didn't find reliable sources among the hits, either. I'd be interested in what reliable sources you found, and your methods, because I always like learning new tricks for uncovering sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google is acting weird today. As it did yesterday, my google search yields "Results 1 - 10 of about 8,330 for link:*.trueorigin.org -site:trueorigin.org" That would be 8300+ links to the TrueOrigin.org web site from other web sites. (But here's the weirdness: today it is only actually showing a few of them; I don't think it was doing that yesterday, or if it was I didn't notice it.) NCdave 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I searched for both links and non-link references to TrueOrigin from other web sites, Google said it found about 13,200 hits. Note that this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on other web sites. NCdave 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx for the clarification on search strategy. Still, google hits or links (or lack thereof) do not establish notability. See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Yilloslime (t) 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I was contacted on my talk page by profg for input. This article seems to be mainly sourced by primary self-published sources, afoul of the last criteria of WP:SELFPUB. If there were one or two secondary independent sources, such as a newspaper article which this website was the main subject of, or even a significant subject of, I could be convinced to switch to a keep. - Crockspot 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got three google news archive hits, but one is a LTTE, and the other two are blog posts. - Crockspot 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sorry little website, like many another feeble-minded blog. No notability established, or establishable. For a website that has allegedly been around since 1997, it has attracted remarkably little attention - almost no Google hits. I can think of many (many, many) really useful websites with far greater importance and influence that do not have their own wikipedia articles (yes, I know, I should go ahead and start articles on them). Snalwibma 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Snalwibma, refrain from personal attacks and gratuitous insults. "Feeble-minded?" Really, it is sufficient to say that you disagree with them, or (as I did) that you find their arguments unpersuasive. Also, calling it a "blog" site seems to be just another insult. I doubt that you really think that it is a blog. Also, I don't think 13,200 is "almost no Google hits." NCdave 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- A few comments. First, note that NPA doesn't refer to insulting websites or such, but to other Wikipedia users. I don't see a negative connotation to blog per se and am puzzled as to why you see one, but in any event, the website does bear a strong resemblance to a group blog. As to the google hit number, that isn't terribly relevant if we don't have reliable sources and in any event since it is a website the cruft multiple is of course going to be high. JoshuaZ 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (1) No personal attack in what I said! (2) If others are allowed to support their "keep" arguments with baseless comments that it's "a great website", surely I am equally entitled to express my contrary opinion. (3) In Google, "trueorigin archive" gets about 700. "trueorigin" gets 14,000, but it's nearly all cruft, consisting of self-references and mentions in blogs etc. (4) And, yes, it is blog-like. Or, if you prefer, a soapbox.Snalwibma 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1&2) Web sites do not have minds, feeble or otherwise. To refer to it as "feeble-minded" indicates that you think its authors and fans are feeble-minded. Even if you do, it is impolite to say so. I'm sure that you can find more civil ways to express your disagreements.

(3) You are mistaken, snalwibma. That 13,200 hits includes no self-references at all, because I explicitly excluded them from the search. That's why I wrote, "this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on other web sites." That's the purpose of the "-site:trueorigin.org" clause in the google search. If you leave out that clause, you get about 14,700 hits. The differences is 10.2% -- which doesn't seem like "nearly all" to me. As for how many of them are mentions in blogs, I don't know, because I don't have the time to look at 13,200 links (but Josuha sees no negative connotation to blogs, anyhow). But even if all of them were references on blogs, that would still be more than sufficient to establish notability. You called it "almost no Google hits," but, truly, I think 13,200 is a lot of references. NCdave 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've asked this before, but since I couldn't find the reliable sources in the google search myself, and since you appear satisfied that you have found them, could you just post links to the three best articles about the web site that you found? I'd love to change my mind in this discussion; I always feel good about being able to save an article from deletion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: While blog doesn't have negative connotation by itself, blogs are not reliable sources. And no number of unreliable sources is sufficient if we have no reliable sources. We could have Graham's Number of google hits and if none of them we're reliable are hands would be tied becuase there'd be nothing we could write about it that was compliant with WP:V/WP:OR. JoshuaZ 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was being a bit rude about the site (and, by implication, about its creators and contributors). If you are reading this, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. And I was indeed a bit offhand in my "no google hits" comment. But I really really cannot find any worthwhile things about trueorigin.org, other than cruft on blogs and discussion groups. Excluding wikipedia and trueorigin itself, the first ten items thrown up by a google search for "trueorigin archive" (which seems a fair enough search, given that it is precisely the name of the wikipedia article in question) are: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. OK - not quite ten, but enough... I may have overstated it initially, but this little exercise confirms my first impression - it's a trivial website with no great influence or notability. Snalwibma 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A post on a discussion list; not a reliable source.
An exchange of emails, not a reliable source.
A catalog form a bookstore; how is this a source at all?
an archive from a discussion board; not a reliable source.
an email, not a reliable source
I only asked for three good sources; and frankly, I don't feel like reading any more of them. Please, reread the reliable sources guidelines and then post the three that are articles in reliable sources about this web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - those ten-or-so links were provided by me in support of my "non-notable" contention. I hope you didn't waste too much time on them! We are still waiting for NCdave to provide the three reliable sources to demonstrate notability... Snalwibma 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I missed the point you were making. No, I didn't have to do more than glance at them. Shall I delete my error, or let it stand to further make the point that the google hits are not reliable sources? Sorry for accusing you of insufficient comprehension of the policy; this discussion has gotten a bit complicated for me and I lost track of who was trying to prove what. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please let it stand. it's much more fun this way... Snalwibma —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the engineers' proof that all odd numbers are prime: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, yep, all odd numbers are prime. That's 9 down, 13,191 to go, but never mind, they're all cruft. NCdave 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you couldn't find the ones that were reliable sources, either? I'm sorry; you must be disappointed, after seeming so sure that there were some. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry if I was unclear. It means that the folks why say all the references to TrueOrigin.org are cruft are stating a conclusion which is unwarranted by the evidence. They obviously haven't looked at even 1% of the references. That is consistent with the pattern established at the very beginning of the AfD, with its creation just 2 minutes after the creation of the article in question: 2 minutes is obviously insufficient time for the article to have been carefully read, let along the subject of the article. NCdave 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did look at the google results. Not at all 1000 hits, of course, but certainly at the first five or six pages. And I didn't find any reliable sources among them. If you think they're there, I'm afraid the burden is on you to prove it. Without those reliable sources, no amount of google-hit-counting will help your argument, and I'd be glad to see the reliable sources discovered so we could save this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously not going to look at 13,200 Google hits. But given the way that Google ranks hits, I reckon a sample of the FIRST NINE out of 13,200 is a reasonable way to gauge Google-notability. But please do tell us - which of the remaining 13,191 are reliable independent sources? Snalwibma 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really wanted this to be kept (per OrangeMarlin's original thinking), so I tried hard to find a reliable source! And just as Snalwibma, I can't find anything satisfying "nontrivial coverage in a reliable source" In contrast to the books that mention talk.origins, I couldn't find a single mention of this web-site in a even a news search. So please, if there is any substantial coverage of this site in print, that is, anything in a reliable source that discusses this site (as opposed to just link to it), then please add it to the article. I think having a NPOV article on this site would be useful, but that is only possible if there is nontrivial independent coverage somewhere... --Merzul 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merzul, your Google book search link finds 46 books that mention TalkOrigins. I just posted a list of 13 books that mention TrueOrigin. Now, granted, 46 is greater than 13, but the numbers are close enough that I wonder how many book references you think it takes to be evidence of notability? NCdave 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only two or three, if they actually discuss the book rather than just mentioning it. Have you read any of these books? Do any of them discuss the book at length or in detail? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is really very simple. If any of those book discuss the web-site in any length, then please summarize what the book says, and add it as a source to the article. If you get two or three of such mentions, then I will change my votes. Even something as short as this, is something that can be used as a source. Do we have anything? But don't expect anyone to weed through this discussion here, if you find anything, add it to the article! --Merzul 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boy, I don't envy the poor admin who has to read this mess and determine consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see, I've read a few of them that appear to be notable:
- How Now Shall We Live? by Chuck Colson
- Natural Theology by William Paley
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells
Ones I haven't read, but look notable:
- Insect Evolutionary Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society by Mark Fellowes
- Researching Anthropology On The Internet by David Lee Carlson
- Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross --profg ^Talk 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, how are we to use them in the article? The notability guidelines are based on the real principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. The reason we need these sources is not to just count them, but to be able to write an encyclopaedic article. What are we to make of these sources? This sources can as far as I have looked at them, only be used to say that "The web-site has been listed in Paley's book in a list of evolution related web-sites together with the Discovery Institute"? In any case, I suggest trying to use these sources to write the article, then whether we have non-trivial coverage in independent sources is immediately obvious. --Merzul 19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Merzul. See in any event my item by item discussion above. JoshuaZ 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Forrester & Gross reference could actually be useful, and would give a little balance to the article, not sure that is enough to then only rely on true.origins itself. I think your analysis is probably right, these sources will do little to help writing the article, but I did my best, and added the Paley ref :) --Merzul 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref from Fellowes as well, will keep looking and adding. Thanks. --profg ^Talk 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Article fails WP:N, in particular WP:WEB. Currently just seems to be a container used to transport cleaning products in and would fail WP:EL if used as such. Arguements to keep are not addressing the very basic failures in Wikipedia policy that this article suffers from, notability as a start. Shot info 01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: actually, the arguments to keep are specifically addressing notability. (Of course, all of that should have been addressed on the Talk page before an AfD was initiated, but hey, who can do that in less than two minutes?) --profg ^Talk 01:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Col. Apji Dalel Singh[edit]

~~Unsourced, questionable notability. Had been speedied once, but speedy was declined this time.~~ --Finngall ^talk 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep He was a member of Constituent Assembly of India that discussed and darfted Constitution of India.Shyamsunder 09:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) [reply]

Strong keep He was a member of Constituent Assembly of India that discussed and darfted the Constitution of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrathore (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above; constitutional drafting bodies are at the notability level as a federal legislature. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination now that context and references have been provided. No question of notability now. --Finngall ^talk 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. meets WP:CSD#A7 W.marsh 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OohYa! Chat[edit]

Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead black males[edit]

Non-notable variant of Dead white males, delete per WP:NEO TeaDrinker 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were a notable expression it would be a dictionary not an encyclopedia item. Steve Dufour 20:24, 5 October
Keep as Dead white males should be deleted if this is deleted. Erwin Morland 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POINT-y leg-pulling. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems rather point-y. Despite the edit summary in this diff, a lack of symmetry is not necessarily racist. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm restoring my !vote and Dhartung's, which were deleted by Erwin Morland (see this diff). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N guidelines even if it does exist. The only things I can find seem to be related to, well, dead black men, as in dead bodies. Nothing to do with contributions of individuals to history as the article asserts. --Beloved Freak 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per User:Bfigura, not having a equivalent article to Dead white males is not racist. This article seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the concept Dead white males. --Beloved Freak 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V and no assertions of notability. → AA ^(talk) — 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MoHo Group[edit]

Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 20:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Co-founded by notable actor Fred Willard; seems to have some notable members; would change to Keep if there were sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Cemetery, Amsterdam, New York[edit]

Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Malformed; not sure what user is driving at; will ask user directly. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 08:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the work put into this article, I'm submitting it for deletion as this article fails WP:NOT#DIR just about to the letter. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WYSIWYL[edit]

Violates WP:NEO. The term does not seem to be in widespread use, and Google returns primarily music-related (not software-related) links. Actually the term even seems to be a trademark [31] rather than a commonly used term. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neogolism. Alternatively, Redirect to WYSIWYG. --UsaSatsui 21:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per UsaSatsui. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Hazelbaker[edit]

This article does not meet notability guidelines. She is a midlevel political staffer and any noteriaty she gained was on a U.S. Senate race. Empire2000 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - National Communications Director isn't a midlevel political staffer, it's a fairly high level. matt91486 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jill Hazelbaker is a public figure. I recommend a Google News search for her name, which turns up 32 recent entries where reporters are quoting her directly and identifying her as the chief "spokesperson" or "press secretary" of presidential candidate John McCain. If she was at one time a "mid-level" staffer, she is no longer at that level now. Deleting this article will benefit Ms. Hazelbaker, but it won't benefit Wikipedia or the people who rely on it for encyclopedia-quality and well-referenced information about the backgrounds of people in the news. betsythedevine 10:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD template clearly states that "Unregistered users should visit Talk:Jill Hazelbaker and leave a detailed rationale for deletion, otherwise this template will be removed." In fact, the unregistered user who nominated this article for deletion has not offered any rationale, so in accordance with Wikipedia policy the Afd template should simply be removed. betsythedevine 20:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was nominated by User:Empire2000, not an unregistered user. -- Kesh 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Empire2000 is the first person to comment on this thread, but the article's page history attributes the Afd template to an unregistered user. betsythedevine 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person seems to have notability/notoriety beyond that conferred beyond her employment (the blogging incident), has been mentioned in the New York Times twice, and her name has been associated with two different politicians at the national level. Not the most notable biography I've ever seen but I suggest just enough to merit keeping this entry. Accounting4Taste 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Wizardman 15:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya[edit]

~~Doesn't seem to really establish notability. May be able to do so if it were greatly improved. Wizardman 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

It looks better now that I stubbed it down, I can see the notability. I'll withdraw it in a short while, just want to make sure it's inherently notable. Wizardman 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aren't universities inherently notable? Having said that the article certainly needs some work on it. --Malcolmxl5 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The universities inherently notable. It is a recognised university.--Shyamsunder 08:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they should be considered inherently notable, because they wlll always have enough material to support an article. I'm not sure this is an absolutely firm rule, but it would sen the best way of dealing with them. Correspondance schools or mr minute colleges that have no real existence may be another matter. There is nothing wrong with a stub such as this. It clearly needs expansion, but there is not reason to delete. DGG (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A university is inherently notable. I will try to add material to this so that we keep this!
Ankur Jain 14:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete on the consensus below. I further note that, so far as I can tell, neither of the teams for which he has played appears to have an article, and it is more likely that they are worthy of coverage than that any individual player is. GRBerry 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun van Eeden[edit]

I don't get it. I typed this into Twinkle and it didn't make the page for some reason.

Anyway, per this edit on my talk page, an anon has asked me to put the page up for deletion. By my own judgment, I think that the anon is right on the money here -- there's nothing that claims any notability for this particular cricket player. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delere per WP:N and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newport Pagnell Town 1sts? You must be joking. NN. DWaterson 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel at this stage in his career Shaun lacks suitable notability! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 10:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

you bastards....what i wrote down was perfectly reliable information. if you go the morrants four counties website you will see for yourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superspurs (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goat Rope[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Prod removed by author. JuJube 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Ridernyc 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not even sure why this was brought here and not speedily deleted. First it's nonsense, second even if it was for real or notable it's a dictionary definition.Ridernyc 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not patent nonsense, and unless one means to suggest that it is entirely a hoax and as such is pure vandalism, there is no speedy deletion criterion that applies here. Joe 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, but not speedily, per WP:NEO. We should avoid neologisms. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not a neologism, but still feels like a dicdef. From a 1987 article in a Dallas paper: "Any team good enough to get this far comes in fully aware that for several morning hours every day you will have to endure a media goat rope. ... "--Sethacus 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone wants to write an article on the practice of literal goat roping. This one belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculous. DWaterson 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable dicdef that's pure OR. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of catchphrases used in Grey's Anatomy[edit]

Basically a collection of trivia; separation from the main article only makes it worse, not better. Also an example of WP:RECENTISM; fails the ten-year test badly. GregorB 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong McDelete per nom, pure trivia/fancruft or whatever. No, seriously, this fails WP:RS by a long shot, as well as WP:RECENTISM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete notability is not inherited. The show is notable, the actors are, and maybe the episodes/seasons. However, unless someone's gone and put out a book of catchphrases from the show, this needs to go for a complete lack of notability and reliable sources. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Über Delete worthless triva that only somone who watches the show would know ForeverDEAD 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic fancruft. Noroton 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, should've been done in the first place anyways. Domthedude001 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not even Wiktionary would want this, oh my. RFerreira 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Was ever there a better example of fancruft? •97198 talk 04:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BALCO delete. The strongest delete possible. Burntsauce 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete But I will consider undeletion if sources are found. W.marsh 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Youth Centre Old Boys F.C.[edit]

This football club fails WP:ORG. No independent sources are cited. This seems to be an amateur team of only local importance. While this is probably true for all football teams on the Isle of Man, that still does not make them pass the notability standard. PROD was contested in January 2007. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 19:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - were formerly members of the top division on the Isle of Man. It's difficult to definitely state how that equates to the system in Mainland England for example, and I know the article needs serious clean-up, but I think this passes the bar of notability. - fchd 20:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly hard to compare in terms of the league system. But let me just try the following comparison: They are one out of 2 football clubs in a city with 7000 inhabitants. The article doesn't state how many members they have, but I should be surprised if they have more a few hundreds. Any local amateur sports club of that size would certainly be considered non-notable, unless there are very exceptional circumstances. --B. Wolterding 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - it's not rare that there are two football clubs in a small town, each deserving of their own article - Tiverton, Newton Abbot (3!), Ossett, Atherton, Totton, etc. - fchd 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe, but then there should be a good reason why - i.e. substantial coverage in reliable sources, more than the local newspaper. These teams are certainly not notable by default. --B. Wolterding 20:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, an effort should really be made to add citations... in lists like this, it helps to weed out vandalism and other inaccurate entries. W.marsh 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides[edit]

This is a list of notable people who allegedly died intentionally by their own hand. However, this list fails to cite reliable sources by which to verify that the named people died intentionally by their own hand. Moreover, there is no requirement that the suicides themselves be important/significant. Notability is not inherited and this list attempts to import the notability of the people on the list into their act of suicide. Both the people and their suicide separately needs to meet the general notability guidelines. Not one of the entries in this list even has a Wikipedia article such as 'Suicide of XXXX". The only such Wikipedia article I could find was the Suicide of Miss Melancholy, which is about a musical group, not a notable suicide. In addition, the entries in this list are covered adaquately through Category:Suicides and the 38 subcategories listed there.. -- Jreferee t/c 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't believe there is a general requirement for lists to be referenced. Suicides should be (and usually are) referenced in the corresponding bio articles. The list is only moderately useful, though. GregorB 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Granted, there have been a few (in)famous suicides (George Reeves, Hitler, etc.), but other than that, I don't see a need to take all these people and group them together indiscriminately. Keep, if verifiable. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list of unsourced redundant info that is better severed somewhere else.Ridernyc 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate info. There are plenty of people who commit suicides in this world, hence the inclusion criterion is far too wide for the list.--Alasdair 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but major re-work needed The subject list is notable, since the suicide of a notable person inherently receives press coverage. This is a list of Wikipedia articles who share an attribute which is studied and covered by many secondary sources. In my view, it meets the the first two purposes of lists in Wikipedia, which are that the list serves as a valuable information source, and that it aids in navigation of a certain topic, in this case, suicides. The argument that the reason an article is included in a list should be notable in and of itself is not enough to delete a list. If you wish, take a look at List of HIV-positive people for an example, which includes notable persons who share a common, widely-studied attribute, HIV. Most sources provided are not published works on their specific HIV infection, per se, only evidence that the person shares the common attribute for inclusion in the list. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, there are certain problems with the list, which should be corrected during this discussion: (1) Move the lead section where it belongs, on top. (2) Create sub-lists of fictional characters and attempted suicides in fiction. Whether these lists meet the notability guidelines by themselves is another AfD debate. (3) Remove outright Possible suicides section. It NEEDS to be sourced otherwise it doesn't belong in any article, let alone this list. Entries under this section who "officially" committed suicide but are disputed (with sources) should be incorporated into the main list with the additional comment. (4) All entries must include a description of the method of suicide, otherwise they should be removed. I know this is not the responsibility of the closing admin, but I hope users reading this discussion will take the time to improve the list and avoid future AfDs. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is yet another list of loosely associated trivia and fails our WP:FIVE pillars immensely. Burntsauce 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The five pillars? How exactly? I'm curious to know. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep loosely associated can be and has been been asserted about almost anything-- we need a proper formulation that would among other things make it clear according to common sense that , for example, having the similar essential characteristic of dying in a particular way that is generally considered as noteworthy is not a loose association. List of suicides in March would be a loose association. List of suicides is not. As usual, all lists need maintenance. DGG (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources can be found on the individual's article. Lugnuts 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is a list of suicides a 'loose association'? How is it 'trivial'? Obviously all the entries should be sourced over time and only 'notable' suicides should be included but 'I don't like it' or 'I don't think it's useful' are hardly an adequate arguments for deletion. Like many articles here it's unduly weighted to the present but it will only improve as it evolves. Nick mallory 10:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above but edit out major portions. The list of real suicides is voluminous enough without adding fictional suicides, suicide attempts, etc. I recognize that an article called "List of fictional suicides" will probably have trouble suriviving, but its dragging this article down rather than anchoring it. Mandsford 12:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's convenient and useful. Horia 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better served as a category. --Sc straker 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use a category. This is bad idea just like List of chefs was a bad idea. MarsRover 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it passed a discussion from just a few months ago and because organized lists of facts are exactly what reference guides do best. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see this being useful for research into celebrity suicides or something. One of Wikipedia's attractions is cataloging this kind of obscure information. Leaving sourcing to the articles about individuals is generally fine, but if this ends keep, I'm going to source all the attempted suicides. Having that kind of unsourced info about living people worries me.--chaser - t 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Normandy[edit]

This is said to be a "top secret project." As such it never attracted the attention of any secondary sources. Steve Dufour 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Super-secret covert operations are pretty much by definition non-notable. Unfortunately, the Men in Black and suchlike don't seem to be particularly chatty types or motivated to supply verifiable information. John Carter 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it is so secret, than it isn't notable, and does not belong on Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do think this is notable, however there simply is to little information to warrant an article. It is very interesting though. Maybe this could be incorporated into an already existing article on Scientology Controversies or something. Elhector 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've decided to change my vote as I've found a lot more information the subject. I'm working on rewriting the article now to include some more of the info and sources that I'm finding. Elhector 23:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it can not be a "controversy" until someone else finds out about it. Steve Dufour 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. With little verifiable info available for this secret project, even if it's true, it could still be considered original research.--Alasdair 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling, knowing something about the anti-Scientology movement, is that the typewritten document presented as a source is genuine. However the project is non-notable since it didn't make the newspapers. Also the statement that its goal is to take over the city of Clearwater, Florida seems to be original research. Steve Dufour 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a news story a long long long time ago, and it was pretty much a flash in the pan. My uncle told me about. The newspaper that covered the story went out of business a year or two afterwards, it was a little independent paper for the area. I'd say let's just get rid of the article. I think Steve is right, we're not going to be able to dig up any more info on this and there simply isn't enough info existing to keep it around. Elhector 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that a report that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1980 for national reporting is flash in the pan. AndroidCat 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AndroidCat, I was ignorant to the Pulitzer Prize thing. I'll go back and check out the updated article to see what I think about it with the updated info. I have a feeling my opnion on this article might change now. Is it ok for me to change my vote here if after I finish reading the updated article I feel like it is in fact notable?Elhector 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference to the article AC. That improves its situation a lot. It is still not clear to me, even after reading the newspaper story, if the project really took place and if its goal was really to "take over" the city. Steve Dufour 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only if the Pulitzer prize is added and documented. That would be unquestionable notability--and if so, other accounts could be found., I dont assume that it can not be documented when nobody reports even trying DGG (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article sat there for a year without anyone trying to provide any sources. WP has over 400 Scientology articles so I guess sometimes one falls through the cracks. Steve Dufour 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLooking at the page just now, I didn't find any added reference to a 1980 Pulitzer prize winning article. Weak keep I voted to delete, then found this AP article was in this morning's paper ^[1]. It's not so top secret anymore, although this article needs to be better sourced. Please note that the "St. Petersburg times article" is actually a link to an sptimes.com "web report", rather than something that was printed in that paper. Worse yet, clicking on to that web report froze my computer... perhaps long enough for conspirators to access all information inside. Mandsford 12:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally published as an 18 page special report in the St. Petersburg Times on real dead trees. If you clicked on the original PDF sptimes.com link, it is 18 megabytes and takes a while. I've increased the warning. (I'd prefer not to include that link, but it is the source for the compressed version 904K version.) As you can see from that recent AP article, because of the byzantine and confusing "Operations" and "Projects" that Scientology used, few stories refer to Project Normandy by name. AndroidCat 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a stub, that cite should be notable enough. (The link is to a PDF containing a series of several connected print articles, rather just a single story.) If the article is ever expanded, it could include the many articles that discuss and detail Project Normandy, but don't use Scientology's code name for it. AndroidCat 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the second source had been in the article I would not have nominated it for deletion. However, there is still some information that the article needs, it seems to me. Like, when did the project start? How long did it last? How many people took part? And, most important, was it successful? Steve Dufour 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the article a little bit, added some more info that I though was useful from the Gabe Cazares article. Let me know what you guys think. It's just a rough draft so far. I'm going to work on it a some more tonight.

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

References[edit]

^ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVuTyWnIohP1X3d3rhDd3YEAqEJg)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio's 5th congressional district special election, 2007[edit]

This article seems to have been set up in anticipation of reporting the news about an upcoming election. This news event and those anticipated by the article lack historical significance and are not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as an independent article. This content fork could be covered adequately in Ohio's 5th congressional district. -- Jreferee t/c 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Congressional elections are notable and of national significance, even special elections and elections in progress. The date is set, the candidates are declared, and it all can be verified. • Gene93k 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not aware of WP's exact standard on the notability of elections. However this seems far more notable than many other topics covered. Steve Dufour 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Comment: This article (if kept) should probably be renamed. Who is going to search for "Ohio's 5th congressional district special election, 2007"? There must be some way to simplify the title. - Rjd0060 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course a congressional election is notable and has historical significance, even if it is at the time news. Labeling this a content fork is certainly original. In any case, the name style is consistent with other articles, and imperfect, but here to stay. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Special congressional elections are notable and historially significant. Wikipedia has articles for every special U.S. congressional election in recent years, to delete them would harm Wikipeida's significance as a source for historical information.--Tdl1060 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elections, especially up to congress (parliamentary) level are inherently notable, since the post up for grabs is important. After all, it influence the state of the gov't.--Alasdair 20:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an historian of XXII will appreciate it.For me that I live outside US that is an interesting article that follow the guidelines of wilipedia User:Lucifero4

Keep This is a special election after all. Thoughtman 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Special elections are significant. Also if we delete this, we would have to delete all other special election pages. Comedy240 23:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above discussion about importance/significance seems pointless. Had I thought the topic lacked importance/significance, I would have speedy deleted the article under CSD A7. Merely because the topic survived CSD A7 is not a basis to keep the article at AfD. Please focus the discussion on the comments I made in the nomination. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seeing as there are three other pages like this that no one else has objected to I see no reason as to get rid of this one Gang14 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Siberian Curse[edit]

~~delete~~Absolutely nonnotable neologism `'Míkka 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changed my vote after being convinced that the article is salvageable in the form of book review. `'Míkka 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —`'Míkka 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have significance and verifiable sources. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Instead write an article on the book from which this expression comes and also mention it in the article on Siberia. My suggestion has been taken by the article's creator. Steve Dufour 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the creator of the page, I refrain from voting. Nevertheless, the term "Siberian curse" is a widely known and used concept in Russian studies. The creation was made from that impression. On demand, I will write an article about the book. Sijo Ripa 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrote the article to a book article. Still any objections? Sijo Ripa 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I changed my vote to keep. Steve Dufour 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked about my opinion after the refocusing the article. I agree this was a right thing to do, but regretfully I am staying with my opinion. There are more books written in the world then wikipedia articles yet. I failed to see that book made a sufficient influence. Of course it was reviewed. All printed books are reviewed. The question is whether the book was influential enough to be spoken about among experts. I also doubt that the concept "is a widely known and used concept in Russian studies": the evidence is not presented. What is more, in my uneducated opinion, the concept is sensionalist and false, and I am quite sure that many dwellers of, say Novosibirsk or Tomsk or Vladivostok will spit in the eyes of the book authors. Many Siberian towns have been built and thriving way before Russian Revolution. The authors have one of this stupid stereotypes that Siberia is all snow and bears. Chinese and Koreans and Japanese don't think so and trying hard to squeeze their nose into Russian Far East and Siberia. `'Míkka 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most books get reviewed. However not all books get a review in Foreign Affairs [32], International Herald Tribune [33], are often cited in the Financial Times [34], or are written by Brookings Institution fellows. Almost all google links refer to academic journals/articles/reviews, university/think tank sites (Columbia university, American Enterprise institute, Berkeley, University of Maryland, etc.), and university course readings. I think this means that there is some influence and knowledge about the book. Also, the book is included on another encyclopedic website: www.encyclopedia.com [35] For the second half of your comment: I don't think that any Wikipedian's opinion about the validity of any book's content is in any way relevant. I can imagine that their thesis is debatable, but an article cannot be rejected on that ground, rather a criticism section can be added. Sijo Ripa 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started from what is relevant for voting: reviews are insufficient. Discussion/importance is sufficient. Yes the second half of my comments is my opinion. The book canot be ejected on this ground, but this is a ground to inspect the notability of the book more thoroughly. From what I see book is not a historical text which adds a e knowledge about facts: it is a text to promote a certain pet theory of authors, which is pushed by them in numerous articles. The question is whether this theory is notable enough to be discussed by other researchers in places other than book reviews. I will have nothing bad if you prove me wrong, but this must be done in the article text, not in this chat. `'Míkka 22:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least there seem to be some people who care about it. :-) Steve Dufour 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of non-reviewing academic articles that discuss or refer to the article can be found here: [36]. If required, I will add other database results. Sijo Ripa 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, what we need in wikipedia is not a list of casual citations of the book, but an evaluaiton of its contents by a notable expert in politology, kremlinology, etc. I have no doubts that the book with a catchy title have made sume splash. Regardless the outcome of the vote, a wikipedia article needs reliable, independent sources that judge the book. Now the article haws none: "International Herald Tribune summary" is written by an author; "google books" is a bibliographic rather than encyclopedic. ref, and "foreign affairs" ref is written by a Robert Legvold (who probably deserves a wikipedia article), but is is just a quick summary of the book, lacking any evaluation of its quality or significance, i.e., it is not a critical review. Another approach to prove notability of the book would be to prove that Fiona Hill or Clifford Gaddy are notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Then automatically their opinion (expresed in their book and numerous articles) becomes notable. Colleague, please understand I am not at all an enemy of Fiona Hill. It is just wikipedia has no other means to maintain its quality of information: opinions of wikipedians don't matter; only published opinions of recognized experts do. We have to require this referncing, otherwise wikpipedia will be flooded with articles about books or other products of nonnotable kooks and crackpots and other useless and even misleading nonsense. `'Míkka 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never assumed anything else than good faith, Mikka, so I don't think you are an enemy of Fiona Hill or the book. I have to convince you that the article is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Plain and simple. However, in general I do disagree that a book needs a positive critical review by a notable expert to be notable. There are many reasons why something can be notable, including that a book made a splash. -- Finding reviews about the book was fairly easy, accessing them is another thing as most require (purchased) login rights. I still have found some: Harley Balzer, Victoria Levin, Hiroki Nogami - please let me know whether you think the reviewers are notable enough. To be honest, I think that many negative reviews can be found as well. Sijo Ripa 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "positive". I meant a "real" review, i.e., not just a summary of content. Anyway, your efforts convinced me. Now you have to make a real article using these reviews. `'Míkka 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuah Michael[edit]

A google search returns less 300 hits most of which are simple links to various myspace and IMDB pages. Can not find any idependant articles writen about him. Ridernyc 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speedily - (NN) - Rjd0060 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshuah michael. --Alksub 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Delete Makes extensive claims none of which are verified. Non-notable or fictitious. --Alksub 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a non-notable person under WP:BIO. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the article to Wikipedia standards

I am currently working with B1atv and he is helping me to bring this article to the standards this site requires for inclusion. Please bare with us through this process until we are complete. Thank you for your time and consideration! Cleanzed 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. tomasz. 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. It appears that he auditioned for So You Think You Can Dance, but never made it out of the audition round. He's using this Wikipedia page for self-promotion, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2776528/resume. He has one entry in ibdb, where he was a member of the ensemble in All Shook Up, but didn't even have a name, apparently. His imdb credits don't show notability. JAM Records doesn't list him as one of their artists - http://www.jamrecordings.com/jamartists.php. Nothing notable in the first several pages of Google search. Note that I have deleted several interwiki links which went to non-existant pages. Corvus cornix 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had offered to do a rewrite but I can't find any reliable sources for this at all. Some of the limited sources in the article don't mention him at all. Opening for major artists may be notable if you are a singer or a band; but not if you are a member of a dance ensemble. A lot of album releases are listed but I can't find any sources to confirm this. B1atv 06:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mansquare[edit]

Non notable game. Wikipedia is not for things a group of friends made up one day. Any reviews from what would be considered a reliable source appear to be fabricated. Prod removed by original author. Onorem♠Dil 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, it's a very elaborate hoax with a supporting website filled with emptiness. Beyond that, there's no verifiable references, ripe with highly POV statements ("second most popular tennis court activity") amongst other issues... Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is amusing and the game, if real, sounds like a great source of fun for the players. However it needs to attract the attention of secondary sources before it's ready for WP. Steve Dufour 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncyclopedic --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take out the trash. Burntsauce 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manly, new delete. humblefool ® 02:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I enjoyed the website mansquare.com, with its authentic-sounding quotes from GQ, the New Yorker and the well-known Tennis Court Activities Magazine. Soon to be featured on ESPN 8, The Ocho. Mandsford 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I am not amused. RFerreira 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are we. Queen Victoria 14:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why can't this have a site and things like world of warcraft have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.229.147 (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although the comparison to World of Warcraft is laughable, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Onorem♠Dil 11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sawyer (footballer)[edit]

Non-notable football (soccer) player. Only reference is a website which doesn't even mention him. Hut 8.5 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not a footballer (or any kind of baller at all), but seeing as how his page has so little content, I'm guessing he is of little note and is just clutter. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near notable enough. A 16 year old who has played 12 games at the tenth level of the English football league system. This is A7 material to me. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long way from being notable. - fchd 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. ArtVandelay13 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league etc. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Liss Athletic F.C.? Uh, not notable. DWaterson 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Person is not, as of yet, notable. RFerreira 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Possible vanity article? robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. See also for some other edits by this IP: [37] [38] [39], and [40] (which actually was quite a good set of edits, bar the unencyclopedic content introduced). --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 23:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiplash (song)[edit]

A number of articles were previously taken to AFD. I was the closing admin on all of them (it was logical for only one person to close the all). The overwhelming consensus on all the songs was to merge and redirect to the article Kill 'Em All. The articles were:

I believe that the song Whiplash (same with Jump in the Fire, which is also now on AFD) is also not notable enough in it's own right for an article on Wikipedia, and would be much better being in the main article Kill 'Em All. I actually merged it and redirected it, but this was reversed by User:Tikiwont, who believe that there was no consensus or discussion over this move. I personally think that my action was no different to what was decided on AFD, but as there is a dispute over this I am formally bringing this article to AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, each mentioned Metallica song was discussed separately, and the consensus on all of them was indeed merging. The two singles "Jump in the Fire" and "Whiplash", however, had not been nominated nor even mentioned in the discussions. Additionally, singles are in general more notable than songs, so my understanding of the resulting consensus was to keep the singles and the one cover song as separate articles, and merge all other songs. (Actually I merged the remaining song "Metal Militia" from PROD myself). Moreover, since above is no delete request and there was already an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kill_'Em_All#Redirected_pages, I'd say a simple merge tag would have done the trick. Now that we're here, I have no definite recommendation yet, but tend to assume that all Metallica singles should be considered notable. --Tikiwont 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect: All - Not really that notable and it will do just fine as a redirect. Your Merge and Redirect shouldn't have been undone IMO. - Rjd0060 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This song has been covered several times, one version by Motorhead winning a Grammy. It thus meets WP:MUSIC#Songs. --Tikiwont 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the actual subject of this AfD (the related ones look like they've been bundled in together, which isn't correct), as it won a Grammy. You can't do much more than that as a song. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grammy-winning song. Maxa megalon 2000 05:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- won a grammy, and was released as a single, which the related AfDs were not. J Milburn 10:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just so I understand what is happening here, there was a dispute... so... we're nominating the article about a grammy winning single for deletion? Right. RFerreira 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. I didn't believe that the song was notable, therefore I took it to AFD. Please assume good faith. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won a grammy. Period. Suggest the nom withdraw now. Burntsauce 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see why I should, not sure if I can. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Released as a single, and I believe that therefore it deserves it's own page. Otherwise, you might as well go about deleting every song page with the same reasoning.

--Rock Soldier 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of hyperbole there... I don't advocate deleting every article about a song. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is this article missing that advocates it to be deleted that other song articles have?

--Rock Soldier 21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Released as a single. Well written page. --TheDoober 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Smurfs and communism[edit]

lets face it, this article seems to be an original research essay of unsourced, useless information. Many of the claims and sources in it cannot be found on the internet or anywhere else, theories shouldn't be trusted without references. I am suggesting deletion or merging the more reliable facts into The Smurfs. The sunder king 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. This has been floating around the net for years, may have been a Rush Limbaugh bit at one time, but ... --Dhartung | Talk 15:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weakest of keeps Sources exist. Look at this one, from The Stanford Daily: [41]. In its current state, the article is OR; but I think there's a chance it can be salvaged. Could we at least merge it to Smurfs? Ichormosquito 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note- I've mentioned that in the nomination, but much of the content is original research. The sunder king 16:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That's fair, I suppose. The OR is pretty glaring: "A true Marxist is an atheist. There is no mention of God in Smurf comics, and there is no Priest Smurf." Ichormosquito 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting article but definitely WP:OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is original research. But mention the ideas, cited of course, in The Smurfs. Steve Dufour 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What bothers me is that, using this "methodology", one could find references to communism in everything, from Macbeth to American Pie. GregorB 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, see Marxist literary criticism. Too many years ago I wrote a B- paper deconstructing Falstaff using a Marxist approach. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Smurfs. We can get a nice, meaty section out of this, it's been discussed enough. Not quite significant enough for it's own article, though. --UsaSatsui 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, totally ridiculous. Burntsauce 23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, plus Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The Hyb rid 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely ridiculous OR. DWaterson 23:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's times like this I was there was an option to transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Still, since it seems to be largely a POV piece of original research, we'd better send all the little blue (unless red blue=purple) men and women to the big bit-bucket in the sky. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (assuming that a published source can be found) a much abridged version of this to The Smurfs. After the generation that watched the Smurfs in the 80s grew up and went to college, there has been much analysis of whether there was a deeper meaning to Peyo's creation. I've seen the controversies over the fact that there is only one Smurfette among the many male Smurfs, or whether "Jokey Smurf" was a terrorist. The theory of The Smurfs as an allegory about Communism appears, at this time, to be original research, but could probably be sourced. Anyone looking for an idea for a masters or doctoral thesis? Mandsford 13:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smurf per nom. (delete) RFerreira 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: This discussion has been held twice before, here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smurf Communism and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism (1): this last one was originally titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism, but moved by the creator of this AfD. Please don't do this, as it makes it very hard to find previous AfD's, and invalidates all links. This AfD now turns up in the middle of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 6... I'll try to clean up this mess, and I hope everyone will at least check the arguments from the previous two keep AfD's. Fram 09:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been cleaned up, if you find any redirects or other references still pointing the wrong way, please do correct them as well. Fram 09:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- but still original research reguardless of the quality, the AFD warrants the criteria for closing now anyway. The sunder king 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's original research, no references whatsoever. I do like the fact that Brainy Smurf looks like Trotsky on the basis that he wears glasses. Sorry, but this is a delete all the way. Irishjp 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series[edit]

Wikipedia is not a warehouse to store lists of every character in every video game. This article is entirely unreferenced and composed of original research. It's never going to be anything more than gamecruft -- the notable characters (which maybe questionable in and of itself) have their own articles; we need not have a list of all the rest. Additionally, the article is full of fair-use images that don't meet our requirements for fair use.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really think it's getting to point we need some new guidelines about lists.Ridernyc 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom (WP:OR and WP:NOT. Agree with User:Ridernyc that the lists guidelines need major revamping. - Rjd0060 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's more effective and efficent then putting ALL these characters on the DAH! and DAH!2 pages. BassxForte 18:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says there needs to be a list of characters at all. Ridernyc 18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. /Blaxthos 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination, we seriously need some policy enforcement to contain all these lists, this is way out of control. Burntsauce 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coment not really the place to discuss this but I figured I'd mention it since it's been bothering me for awhile now. The growing bloatedness of wikipedia really needs to be dealt with. For example Wikipedia:Article_size needs to put more of emphasis on copy editing and less on just splitting articles. If your article is too long it's probably because theres to much information.Ridernyc 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I must comment that there's really no such thing as "too much information", as long as said information is dealt with in an encyclopedic manner. This on the other hand is pointless trivia. RFerreira 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because Wikipedia has more opportunites for inclusion than a paper encyclopedia and this list is really masterfully done in terms of its comprehensive nature, use of images, organization, etc. No need to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the images are illegal, and the aesthetics of an article have nothing to do with the reasons for considering deletion. /Blaxthos 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keeping an article over images seems like an "I LIKE IT" argument to me. RobJ1981 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Article is entirely fancruft, no references... Delete ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hill (actor/producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daniel Hill (actor/producer)

Non-notable actor; only source comes from a non-notable publication. GlassCobra (Review) 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about him.Ridernyc 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe one day he'll achieve notability, but he hasn't yet.--Michig 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability to come.--Sethacus 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even less notable than your average Usenet personality. Burntsauce 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California's 4th congressional district election, 2008[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/California's 4th congressional district election, 2008

This article seems to have been set up in anticipation of reporting the news about an upcoming election. This news event lacks historical significance and is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Moreover, this content fork could be adequately covered in California's 4th congressional district. -- Jreferee t/c 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that a congressional election is far more notable than lots of stuff that gets WP coverage. I don't understand the reason it should be nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, true, but no case is made that this election is notable, beyond the fact that the Sacramento Bee newspaper wrote a couple of articles on the subject. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A congressional election, even for one district, will affect the balance of power in American politics and may be an important event in someone's political career. Steve Dufour 20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a specific WP:ELECTION guideline to base deletion decisions on, all we have is the general principle that an article ought to assert the notability of the subject. This one does not, last time I looked. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elections to national legislatures have historical significance.--Cube lurker 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as this page is updated regularly, it would be an important resource for an election that will have significance for the balance of the US House of Representatives. Does an election need to be over before it enters wikipedia? --Mkativerata 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - elections to legislatures are notable enough for me. DWaterson 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In 2006 Col. Brown almost won in a district that every political scientist said he would loose in a land slide. This time around he's got twice as much money and his opponant's home has been raided by the FBI. This is going to be a showdown district. Thoughtman 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post now lists it the most likely US congressional district to switch parties in 2008 - here.

Comment The above discussion about importance/significance seems pointless. Had I thought the topic lacked importance/significance, I would have speedy deleted the article under CSD A7. Merely because the topic survived CSD A7 is not a basis to keep the article at AfD. Please focus the discussion on the comments I made in the nomination. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 04:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, I don't think it could be covered adequately in California's 4th congressional district - see the lengthy separate page for the 2006 4th district race. As this is likely to be a very significant race in the 2008 year, another separate page is warranted. The article is not mere news - it is a description and tracking of an ongoing event that is and is likely to continue to be of significance. --Mkativerata 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jump in the Fire[edit]

A number of articles were previously taken to AFD. I was the closing admin on all of them (it was logical for only one person to close the all). The overwhelming consensus on all the songs was to merge and redirect to the article Kill 'Em All. The articles were:

I believe that the song Jump in the Fire is also not notable enough in it's own right for an article on Wikipedia, and would be much better being in the main article Kill 'Em All. I actually merged it and redirected it, but this was reversed by User:Tikiwont, who believe that there was no consensus or discussion over this move. I personally think that my action was no different to what was decided on AFD, but as there is a dispute over this I am formally bringing this article to AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, each mentioned Metallica song was discussed separately, and the consensus on all of them was indeed merging. The two singles "Jump in the Fire" and "Whiplash", however, had not been nominated nor even mentioned in the discussions. Additionally, singles are in general more notable than songs, so my understanding of the resulting consensus was to keep the singles and the one cover song as separate articles, and merge all other songs. (Actually I merged the remaining song "Metal Militia" from PROD myself). Moreover, since above is no delete request and there was already an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kill_'Em_All#Redirected_pages, I'd say a simple merge tag would have done the trick. Now that we're here, I have no definite recommendation yet, but tend to assume that all Metallica singles should be considered notable. --Tikiwont 17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From an aesthetic point of view, it might be a good idea to change the way the other (closed and not under discussion) AfDs are listed here. Before my brain kicked into gear, I thought they'd been bundled together into this particular one, which is not the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (and tagged for sources) - There are a quite a few Google hits, but they would need to be combed through for some good sources. Still it is the second Metallica single and seems to be also a collectors item, so I'd say keep it as separate article. --Tikiwont 08:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Released as a single, and I believe that therefore it deserves it's own page. Otherwise, you might as well go about deleting every song page with the same reasoning.

--Rock Soldier 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Released as a single. This alone makes the page noteworthy. Could be expanded, however.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoober (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 not even particularly funny. DS 13:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Horton[edit]

Hoax. To quote the article "Horton was believed to be in a cult in 1801 consisting of 4 people [...] named The Funky Crew". Riiiiiiiiight. Pascal.Tesson 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was funny !!! Without any sources is even harder to believe :D Elmao 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vote Strong delete as hoax as soon as I stop laughing! The "Funky Crew"? Gimme a break.--Sethacus 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously. DWaterson 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. See the categories X year births--JForget 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actresses by year of birth[edit]

A pointless list. Much better in categories. We aren't "Wikilists". – Aillema 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have actor/actresses birth/deaths in Years in films e.g 1980 in film at the bottom. Far too generic -there are millions of "actresses". It should have been speedily deleted not afd ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said on my talk page - I got some others' opinions, and I was told to AfD it. – Aillema 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless list that is probably going to be very difficult to keep current. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another endless list.Ridernyc 17:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this pointless crap. Burntsauce 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it would be unmaintainable if it had any more content than Dakota Fanning... DWaterson 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bad idea for a list. Unencyclopedic. It would be extremely difficult to maintain, and what's the point to it anyway? Noroton 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this case, categories are going to do a better job of handling this information. Every time. RFerreira 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 merge discussion provides little reason for merge. The delete discussion is clear, grounded in policy, and is the consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 06:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Woz (Code Monkeys)[edit]

The Woz (Code Monkeys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
E.T. (Code Monkeys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stonervision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Prison Breakout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just One Of The Gamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Take Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Larrity's Got Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPO (Code Monkeys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Todd Loses His Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Third Reich's the Charm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Revenge of Matsui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While I personally love the tv show Code Monkeys on G4, I must nominate these for deletion. While the tv show itself is notable, each individual episode is not (i.e., notability is not inhereted). Wikipedia is not in the business of plot summaries. These articles are entirely unreferenced, full of trivia, and are wholly original research.

Delete all as nominator. /Blaxthos 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per nom on every point (WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:FICTION). - Rjd0060 14:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for all the above reasons.Ridernyc 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge all episodes into a "List of Code Monkey episodes". BassxForte 18:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge all episodes into a "List of Code Monkey episodes". Frenchbreadpizza 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above and nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge all episodes into a "List of Code Monkey episodes". - Dravecky 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a "List of Code Monkeys episodes" with a short summery of the ep. (perhaps also with a mention of guest stars) Scaper8 05:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a "List of Code Monkeys episodes" with a short summary of the episode. 75.45.140.237 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a "List of Code Monkeys episodes". There isn't enough material per episode for a good, detailed article on each - but a list with a brief summary would be fine. We might look at the List of Smallville episodes, which is a Featured List - though obviously the shows differ somewhat. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This probably isn't going to get closed until someone actually does the merge... --W.marsh 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though there's no article called List of Code Monkeys Episodes, the article for the show itself has a servicable list Here. The list features the episode name and number, original airdate, and a brief summary with mentions of any notable guest stars. Unless there is additional information which should be kept, I think the merge is already complete. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't feel right with just one or two sentences about an episode. BassxForte 04:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Glendenning[edit]

Little claim of notability in article; first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have worked on advertising campaign(s) that have won awards, but lots of people have won awards in their field without really being notable. No direct coverage of this individual was found. Article as it stands appears purely self-promotional.--Michig 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sc straker. -- Magioladitis 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. If awards were notable & covered in mainstream press, references would be enough to establish notability. --Alvestrand 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual commerce[edit]

Another one of Dr. Augustine Fou's articles that seems like pure self promotion.. Ridernyc 14:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems NN, & per nom (self promo). - Rjd0060 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would just like to point out that I nominated this article at the same time but for some reason they did not list properly. This was all prompted by User:AcFou creating self promotion articles that end up being speedily deleted.Ridernyc 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive Pro Wrestling[edit]

Fails notability and no third party sources have been provided to support statements made on the page !! Justa Punk !! 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:V & WP:N. This was the only reliable source I could find on the topic, and it doesn't do anything to verify the contents of the article other than saying it exists. Considering the lack of multiple independent sources, fails on the notability front too. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all this stuff is from 2007 and there are heaps of reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.129.6 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reviewing the two articles history's it is likely that a merge did occur in the past. Accordingly, we must redirect to preserve history. GRBerry 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaate Amroha[edit]

Delete it. As Amroha has Already an Article Which also nees improvement and this is Confusing and ambigous.NotClear .Shabiha 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs) 2007/10/04 23:02:35

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom (no need for a separate article). - Rjd0060 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faerghail[edit]

No notability in the Wiki sense is even asserted in the article, far less verifiably sourced. I will nominate the associated articles and link to this discussion. Springnuts 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail the Wiki notability guidelines:

Weak delete. Notability needs to be established through reliable sources. It seems that notability should be out there. A google search of Faerghail + "Where Angels Dwell" meets 9,600 hits. The problem I'm encountering is that on page 20 of that, I still haven't come across something usable. I've run the band through every review site listed at WikiProject Album without encountering it anywhere, even at more promising sites like Blender or Alternative Press. I tagged the article for notability concerns on September 22, but the question has not been thoroughly addressed. Since the band is from Finland, I recognize that it is quite possible that notability can be established through sources which I don't usually frequent and will be watching in case somebody meets more success than I have at supporting the notability of this band. (And, of course, if the band goes, the albums should.) --Moonriddengirl 14:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They don't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. The problem here is, you've got multiple albums on multiple labels, none of which appear to be notable. Also, the band's AMG entry lists only the "Where Angels Dwell" album and lists the label as "Not Known".--Sethacus 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate evidence of passing WP:Music. A1octopus 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kistenlauf[edit]

No assertion of notability or sources. It had been tagged for both, but tags taken down immediately by the article's creator without any meaningful further editing. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avruch ^Talk 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has extensive counterparts in German and Austro-Bavarian languages, in addition to the word "Kastenlauf," which has no other meanings, returning over 10000 hits on Google. Thus, it should be kept, and I will endeavor to improve it in the future (as my German improves). In addition, I would also like to see the article in some way protected from future nominations for deletion, as the taggers seem never to first look at the explanation on the talk page. -Oreo Priest 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. I still think the article should be deleted. Google isn't the end all be all of notability, the article is unsourced... if there is an analog in a German wikipedia, ask someone to translate it across? Avruch ^Talk 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never removed the sources tag. Second, to say the (stub) article will be deleted if it has no sources is a ridiculous policy; there wouldn't be a single one left.

More importantly, however, I found a reference, so everything should be settled now. -Oreo Priest 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Google are you using, or this a deception tactic? I searched for both Kastenlauf and Kistenlauf and got less than 900 ghits for each. And in those ghits I saw only blogs and mirrors - nothing resembling a reliable source. This is very close to CSD A7, and we haven't yet had that explanation of notability. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked both myself and am confused. I recall kastenlauf returning over 10000, though this is clearly not the case. I apologize. Regardless, several references to reliable sources have been found, and I believe this puts the matter to rest.-Oreo Priest 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A power of wikipedia is that, unlike, say Encyclopedia Britannica, it also keeps record of people's silliness, if it is notable, widespread and well documented. Enjoy: Kastenlauf 2004; my favorite `'Míkka 00:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dunno much about deletion policy, but I support the argument of Oreo Priest, and certainly feel that this article should be retained and not deleted, although I feel a reference must be immediately found. K a r n a 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meerkat Manor 2[edit]

This is another of a large number of forks of Meerkat Manor that have come to light recently. Anything that is here, verifiable, and not in Meerkat Manor should be merged, and then this redirect should be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a huge wall of text with no context, no sources, no verification. Are any/many of these even real? Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (no real context or sources). - Rjd0060 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge anything verifiable to Meerkat Manor. Delete the rest. This is just a huge meaningless list outside of the parent article.--Sethacus 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. None of the listed "groups" after the first section are mentioned in either Meerkat Manor or the Kalahari Meerkat Project site. Clarityfiend 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to deleteper Clarityfiend and per my own research. I took a look at the original version of the article, which had two meerkat families: The "main" family, which contains some of the names of the meerkats in the series. The other, Salmoni, only seems to exist on fanboards. It's my feeling that the members of these fanboards created and maintained this article, through IPs and such, adding more families as their fanboard added them. One of them was blocked for conducting a MySpace-like environment on their talk page. The author of the article blanked the Meerkat Manor page and, I guess, tried to create another page for it under an alternate title. Call it a hoax, call it bored schoolkids making junk up, it doesn't belong here.--Sethacus 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also like to point out that this appears to be a breeding ground for creating made-up mobs [42]. I haven't looked at the entire history, but this doesn't really appear to be an isolated incident. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Jose Earthquakes (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes Soccer, LLC[edit]

Non-notable company. Notability is not inherited. Sufficient mention of the ownership and history of the club is included in the San Jose Earthquakes article. SkerHawx 12:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Jose Earthquakes seems like the obvious answer. In fact, I've already done it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. I was gonna merge, but there wasn't any new info to add. --UsaSatsui 13:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy breath[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination Article proposed for deletion despite a previous trip to Articles for Discussion. PROD nominator states: "original research, unsourced, nn". Previous discussion ended with no consensus. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, original research, not notable, per nom. Avruch ^Talk 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it either fails WP:DICT or WP:OR. Either way, it should be nuked. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is notable among dog breeders as something other than a chat-room topic, it will get sourced. If not, goodbye. SchmuckyTheCat
Delete. Just get rid of this already, my goodness. Burntsauce 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 19:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 are suggestions below for starting with a sub-section on the college's page, which if there are independent sources available on the topic would be an excellent idea. GRBerry 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability at Berea College[edit]

Reads like a press release from the college's Department of Public Affairs; no external sources; no reason why we should have articles on particular organizations' efforts at "greening". NawlinWiki 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we are a group of 4 Berea College Students uploading a wikipedia page for a class project. While being unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, we accidentally uploaded the page before it was ready. When we saw the save the page button at the bottom of the page, we thought it would save our work and we could upload it at another time. Our assignment is do on October 10, 2007, which is now the day our page is marked for deletion. We didnt mean to post it yet, and now we are lost and could use some help. We are still in the process of fine tuning our information and work, and dont know where to go from here. Please help us!!! Thanks for anything you can do. Jsahrrdc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsahrrdc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Wikipedia is NOT a free web host. Geocities is that-a-way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to talk for the interim, or a subpage there, in the interim then. I am not convinced yet that a college's mission statement on environmental policies is noteworthy enough for a full article, even if it rates a paragraph or two in Berea College. But until the initial editor gets something worthy of final release, it should be preserved for future work. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help I guess we still dont quite understand, is there a way we can take our page down finalize it and post it again? Is that what you were refering to when you said copy it to talk? Do we just copy the entire page and post it in the talk section? We appreciate all of your feedback. It will only help us make our page better and Wikipedia worthy. Thanks Jsahrrdc —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WTF? It's a college mission statement in regards to enviornmental practices. Why in the blue hell does it have a page? At best this could be put into the main article on the college. --Cyrus Andiron 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment Assuming good faith and don't bite the newbies, I created a User Talk sub-page and copied the article there. It shouldn't be on Wiki at all, but there's no point trashing these guys work if they'll be removing it within a week or two. If I've violated any policies by making the copy onto the talk sub-page, please let me know and feel free to revert it. Franamax 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not going to be "safe" there. A talk page without an article is speediable. It needs to be put under someone's user page. -- Ben 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well there's some learning for me too, I was following Smerdis above. Not gonna do anymore, if Jsahrrdc resurfaces, they can create their user page for extra credit. If they had an email contact, I would have just told them what to do. I sent a non-snarky email to Berea PR asking if their prof's are in the habit of assigning wiki-projects without knowing what they are about. Franamax 03:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. If biting the newbies means getting rid of this article then bite away. Burntsauce 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or at the very least userfy. Honestly, people should do some more research on our policies before sending these kids off to create articles for homework. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first part of a college class Wikiproject should be finding something notable to write about. this will require a certain about of preliminary research about wikipedia, such as reading WP:N and some of the other introductory pages. (Just like term papers or class projects of any sort--you need to have a topic). There are many possibilities: Berea has many notable alumni--some have article, but there are probably many more who could probably justify articles, as could probably a number of the faculty-- and perhaps some of the buildings. And Berea has an very interesting history and a dramatic social role in American education--though its founder has an article, there were other prominent people involved. (and all of the surrounding towns and countries , though they may have articles, could probably use some expansion) A little more imagination is needed. I'll be glad to help if the instructor wants to contact me. DGG (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that its an early-year media or communications class (if it's IT-related they will surely fail - I hope :) and WP is a perfectly valid topic. A good skill to have as long as they teach how to evaluate what they read and develop the necessary skills like checking history and discussion. One could also argue that it's perfectly valid for a prof' to just throw them out there - getting a kick in the head is always a valuable, if brutal form of learning :) Possibly the instructor is aware of WP's self-healing capacity and is teaching a lesson and a meta-lesson at once. In any case, if I get a response I will pass it along. Franamax 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of this back into Berea College. The college, located at Berea, KY, has always marched to a different drummer, with work-service alternatives to tuition and a historically diverse student body (a court order was taken in 1904 to enjoin it from disregarding segregation laws). However, no matter how well-intentioned, the separate article as a class project isn't encyclopedic. Nothing to stop the students from contributing to the larger page. Mandsford 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually did research wikipedia and what it is all about. Our prof gave us a 20 page history of how and why the founder of wikipedia did what he did and what wikipedia is all about. It is for a general education course on critical thinking, part of the whole process that we are supposed to be going through is figuring out what knowledge is to us and what others feel knowledge is. Obviously from above reponses the topic we chose is not what others feel knowledge is. We are currently in the process of revamping our whole page and would take this one down if it wasnt against the rules of deletion. Your comments have been really helpful, and eye opening to this whole wikipedia experience. Some alot nicer than others, but the world isnt always a friendly place, especially when you are a "newbie". All of them will hopefully make our next upload a more successful one. Since this is only a two week long assignment it is hard to understand the whole wikipedia concept. There is so much info out there, trial and error though sometimes teaches the best lessons.So again thank you, and we may be contacting some of you again for for help, others for future scrutiny.Jsahrrdc 13:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - re-voting per Jsahrrdc comments. Seems the issue is settled? Jsahrrdc, create your user page now, you have contracted the wiki-virus and it can't be stopped. Try searching for Wikipedia:xxxx, xxxx being new user, edit page, policies, whatever - keep hacking and follow the links. Critical thinking is good, remember any or all of us could be lying at any given time, check the sources. Good luck! :) Franamax 14:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename to New Zealand national football team results (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand fixtures and results[edit]

I can't find any other country-specific results article like this, and it looks suspiciously like a case of WP:NOT. Ambiguous title, too - fixtures and results in what? Given current sporting events, I doubt soccer would be on most New Zealanders' minds as a first choice. Grutness...wha? 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Grutness...wha? 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep England national football team results seems to have survived for more than a year without being deleted, so I guess this one should stay too. If it can be enlarged to cover every game the All Whites have ever played, it would be a useful addition. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah - the name fooled me - I couldn't find England fixtures and results or England football fixtures and results (nor similar for several other countries I tried). Grutness...wha? 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked at England national football team results as well and it seems like a valuable resource. I think it should be renamed though, New Zealand national football team results. The fact that it has an ambiguous name should not be a reason for deletion. Just change the title. Woodym555 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has to be renamed. Other than that it does no harm. --Helenalex 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected by Bearcat. W.marsh 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maynard[edit]

Per precedent, candidates are not inherently notable. Given references appear to be rather niche, absent of more impressive external verification per WP:BIO, subject would happear to have done little except run for elected office. Deiz talk 11:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's currently a candidate in the provincial election, which is only five days away, and he's considered a serious contender to win it. Nominate this after the election if he loses, sure, but in the meantime there's not much point in debating an article that may potentially snowball before the discussion even closes. And even if he does lose, the actual precedent indisputably entitles him to inclusion in a merged list of party candidates. Suspend until October 11. Bearcat 10:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Minor[edit]

Not Notable. Only one significant source is listed (bbc) and it's a minor local radio write-up, the last fm page is copied from here, myspace and youtube are not viable sources for notability, announcements of tours do not confer notability, repossession records has two bands on it's books. The only possibly notable fact about one band member is that he was a head chorister at St Johns, Cambridge, but whilst that may confer notability on him, it does not make the band he sings in notable, nor does it confer notability on fellow band members. I have also AfD'd all the band members except Ed Minton for NN. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Keep Initially I believed NN, but 2 singles have both charted in the UK top 40, which appears to meet notability criteria for bands. However, the article is in desperate need of some reliable cites, unfortunately the chart website I found only appears to make archives visible for the current year, so is not citeable as at some future date the archive will not be visible. Perhaps someone could cite NME issues or similar? cites don't have to be web.DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC) modified DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article states The single entered at number 31 on the UK Singles Charts thereby passing criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC (a nationally charting release). In fact a quick check on everyhit.com reveals that the band has had two charting singles, as the follow-up reached #19 in August of this year ChrisTheDude 10:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the #19 position for the second single was actually already in the article as well..... ChrisTheDude 10:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. In addition to ChrisTheDude's point, the article clearly shows that they fall under criterion #11 (placed in rotation) of WP:MUSIC and probably under #4 (national tour) too. That's not to say that the article doesn't need a fair amount of clean-up, more NPOV and more RS. Bondegezou 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSIC per ChrisTheDude. I do think it needs some cleanup, I'll tag that. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Michig 12:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The AfD template was removed from the article by 90.242.54.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have reinstated it. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nom. Why did you skip Ed Minton? -- Ben 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head Chorister of St John's may confer some notability on EM, but I don't believe that carries over to other band members. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they do meet WP:Band but possible block of 90.242.54.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disrupting the process, and vandalism. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.they are notable enough for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.166.50 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band as a whole meet WP:Music. Block 90.242.54.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as recommended above. A1octopus 16:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC as mentioned more than once above. RFerreira 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saw the band on a commercial music channel, and they have a charted single - meets WP:MUSIC. --AndyKali 21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Plan's third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Simple Plan's third studio album

unsourced crystalgazing articler Will ^(talk) 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very crystally. No release date, a rumored title and track listings make for a very nonspecific article. No objection to recreation later when actual facts are available. --Cyrus Andiron 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced crystal-ball article. - Rjd0060 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Balls. A1octopus 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Davies[edit]

Not notable, member of a non notable band. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, NN. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notablity is currently questioned as an article for deletion.~No references. Iamchrisryan 10:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has some relevant information on the member of a band, the page does give information on him whereas the main band page doesn't as much. 16:27 10 October 2007

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hetherton[edit]

Not Notable, member of a not notable band. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notability is currently questioned as an article for deletion. Iamchrisryan 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pungent Stench's sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pungent Stench's sixth studio album

only one source (albeit to the official forum) saying the album is being recorded. No release date, etc. Will ^(talk) 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (crystal). - Rjd0060 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Hetherton[edit]

Not Notable, the band is not notable either. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notability is currently questioned as an article for deletion. Iamchrisryan 10:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-American organized crime[edit]

WP:OR, no sources specified for months. I suppose the Greek mafia executed all material witnesses. Niko Silver 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy ~~eliminated~~ deleted. Article was full of unsourced allegations of mafia activities against named living individuals. Even alleged mafia members are protected by WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Paul[edit]

No assertion of notablity, no suggestion or hint of anything notable about this musician. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notability is currently questioned as an article for deletion. Iamchrisryan 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino pride[edit]

Filipino pride is more than a Youtube video. Delete due to notability issues. I hope someone would re-create a better article than this one Lenticel ^(talk) 08:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a pointer to a YouTube video. --Sc straker 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN - Rjd0060 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of any sort of notability. Hut 8.5 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' NN video --- Tito Pao 22:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rasoul[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Not a holder or past-holder of political office nor the subject of reliable, independent coverage -- Lincolnite 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - vanity, NN. Iamchrisryan 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Can Museum[edit]

Private collection. Owner claims that the Wiki entry has brought him 30 visitors in one year: [43]. No credible sources. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no assertion of notability. Possible CSD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several assertions of noteability - the collection is large and has been featured in international media. The fact that the collection is private does not mean it is non-noteable - private collections form an important part of preservation and display for many art and craft media. Sourcing is an issue for better editing, not deletion. Bacchiad 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. On Lexis-Nexis I found discussion of the "museum" in the New York Times and Boston Globe, plus the entry claims it has been written about in a number of other publications. The sourcing obviously needs to be improved, but clearly notability has been asserted. I'm not entirely convinced this is in fact notable, but I'm going to err on the side of keep on this one. Also I would note that the owner did not say the Wiki article brought him 30 visitors in one year, he posted one comment about 30 visitors coming to his "museumfest"--i.e. it was 30 visitors in one day--and he posted another entry saying the Wiki article probably led to him getting more e-mails about his collection.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - I see that. "30 guests this year" relates to the one day only "Museumfest". However, it is still something that has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and is one of many such private beer can collections which would also have been given a cursory mention in a newspaper which would be doing an article on the Brewery Collectibles Club of America [44]. I think an article on collecting brewerania might stand up, and as such the Brewery Collectibles Club of America would get a mention and one or two of the more notable of the private collections. Would this one be among the most notable? 3,000 cans is not a lot. As far as beer collecting goes, that's not a huge number. Coming from a beer collecting fraternity [45] and [46] where respect is only given to those who collect 5K or more,[47]. [48] I can say that 3K is not notable. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right about the notability thing, I just don't even know how to determine it other than by coverage in secondary sources. There's been at least some, and the article asserts there is more though I did not find it, so I still hold to a weak keep on this one. Your links seemed to primarily about scooping, which I take it is the consumption of different beers rather than collecting beer cans or bottles, or is it both? In any case it sounds like fun!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People collect various beer related things. Scoopers mainly collect beers, but many will also collect the bottle or caps or labels or pump clips - Dale has over 13,000 pump clips, and his site is extensively used by the beer collecting community in the UK. He'll have numerous links on Wiki. Some beer collectors will build special cellars to hold their collections. It's an interesting hobby. Personally I just drink the beer - though I have kept a few special bottles that I have drunk. My bottle of Bass King's Ale from 1902 I kept after I drunk the contents! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to have abundant mentions to make it notable, and the verifiability comes from their own website. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you have done. However, I am still not convinced that sentences like "the Mustard Museum or The Beer Can Museum or the nut museum" quite fulfill "Significant coverage" which means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." The sources appear to prove the place exists, but don't quite prove the notability. Look again at WP:N and at sentences such as "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined." My point is that mere mentions of a place does not signify notability, and that Wiki editors over time and through consensus have drawn up guidelines for situations like this. I don't see convincing arguments for Beer Can Museum's notability. What I see is assumptions that if a place has been briefly mentioned in several newspapers it will confer nobility by default, which is not what our guidelines are saying! Where does the article or the sources assert notability? The number of cans is not large in itself, nor is the number in itself considered significant: WP:BIG. The act of collecting brewerania is not by itself significant or notable. The collection has few visitors. What we have is a description of someone's private (and average) beer collection which has been mentioned, along with other such collections, in a handful of newspapers. Where exactly is the notability? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't the biggest, or the best. Thats for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Verifiable. Sufficently expanded/cleaned. A side note: the nominator seem to have, like, a fit of beerphobia, judging from his recent edit history :-) no big deal, but sorta funny for a confessed beerdrinker. `'Míkka 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I know what you're saying. But I have a triviaphobia rather than a beer phobia! I'd prefer to merge minor material into more significant articles than to delete, but when there is no reasonable article into which to merge, or when the material is particularly trivial, then I will suggest or support a deletion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references so carefully quoted, are merely mentions, listing it among a number of other curiosities. WP covers notable local museums, certainly, notable because they are considered important in some way--not listed in articles giving a list of what is not important, as the NYTimes, or mentioned in an exhaustive list of everything to see in a particular village. Thee are many uses of the word "trivia" one is the peripheral aspects of important things that help in understanding them and their influence--that's encyclopedic. Another is things that have no importance but are just part of the world--they are not encyclopedic. The guidelines just express common sense. Let's put it this way--if the most expansive article here imaginable can get it only a handful of visitors , and the manager quotes this as notable success, then even in WP was for advertising, it wouldn't be worth it. There's a limit to rational inclusionism, and this is beyond it. If we want remarkable collections of beer, there are some very notable stores in my part of Brooklyn. DGG (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The museum is notable as evidenced by the multiple non-trivial sources about the subject, far surpassing our standards for verifiability. RFerreira 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passed notability standards for me... maybe i should head down and take some CC-by photos to illustrate some of our articles from WikiProject:Beer. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byington Vineyard[edit]

Non-notable winery with very little (if any) distribution outside of its own region that doesn't pass WP:CORP. The few google news hits are only about local wine tastings and weddings. These is no international or main stream coverage in Decanter or Wine Spectator which is not surprising considering the limited distribution. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers will never see these wines much less hear about them. Even the vineyards own website only shows only very limited local press coverage. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well known in the Bay area and appears to meet WP:CORP. Vineyard also brings up over 11,000 Google hits and 16,000 Yahoo hits. [49] Most of which are unique. Gateman1997 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you add quotes to the name and subtract the Wiki mirrors the number is [far less] and reflect the same trivial notes about tastings and weddings in the same limited regional scope. Again it is not surprising consider the very limited distribution of the wine. Only folks around the vineyard and to a lesser extent the West Coast will ever have an opportunity to hear about the wine. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4300+ is also a very large number. Plus the area you claim is small encompasses at minimum 30 million people. Seems relevant to me. Gateman1997 07:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do consider the worldwide wikipedia readership as well as the worldwide wine community in pondering this question. What, apart from just being a winery, sets Byington Vineyard apart from your local fine restaurant like [North Star] in San Francisco which receives even more local press attention and has a two star Michelin Guide rating? Despite that there is North Star Restaurant article and for good reasons--the same types of reasons why this article should be deleted. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that Wineries are about 1000x rarer than a resturant on the average ;) Gateman1997 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is far more wineries then two star rated restaurants. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you seriously underestimate the number of wineries, and I can't help but jump at your number 1000 x. In Germany (which I happen to have some viticultural familiarity with and where they're good at publishing statistics) the 1999 viticultural survey recorded 68 598 vineyard owners, or more than 800 vineyard owners per million capita. The number of wineries is probably significantly lower, since some small growers send their grape to local winemaking cooperatives, but will still run into the 10 000s. At 10 000-30 000 wineries we would have around 120-370 per million capita. Despite this, Germany imports 4 x as much wine as it exports, so in countries like France and Italy the density of vineyard owners and wineries is even higher, and they are not exactly rare in relation to good restaurants. Not even if you count every McDonald's and hot dog stand is there 120.000-370.000 restaurants per million capita anywhere! In Europe outside France, there seems to be about 1-2 Michelin-starred restaurants per million capita. My point (beside picking on the number 1000 x) is that in many parts of the world, there are a lot of small, reasonably compentent wineries that are appreciated locally but totally lack notability on a national or transnational scale. On a global scale, this kind of winery is nowhere near a rare phenomenon. I believe that the point Agne is trying to make by invoking the notability clause is that randomly having 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 of such wineries being represented by an article in Wikipedia next to, among others, Château Margaux, Schloss Johannisberg, E & J Gallo Winery and Penfolds runs the risk of making us look generally ridiculous and less an encyclopedia with relevant wine-related content. Tomas e 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims to notability, no multiple reliable, reputible, notable third party coverage in any press, book, or news coverage. Or in simpler terms, it has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Google search that Agane gave us shows no press articles on this winery for the first five pages. All I find are press release announcements of wine tasting or listings and discription of the winery in a buisness listing section of the online paper.
I only found ONE link [50] that has this winery mentioned along with four or five other local winerys. The problem is per WP policy, this is not significant coverage...and there certainly isn't by multiple sources.

This is a trivial or incidental coverage of the winery by a secondary source and is not sufficient to establish notability. Has this winery won any national or international awards for it's wine that can be verified? Are they well known in the winery world? Have multiple winery magazines written full length articles about just this winery? What makes this winery notable? I fail to find anything and I looked for over 30 minutes I didn't look hard enough. Thank you Eliz for your tireless efforts! --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 08:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have changed my mind. Eliz has proven notability beyond a shadow of a doubt --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 09:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the references I added the article, their Pinot Noir won an award, as evidenced by one of the article titles. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google hits can't establish notability, and notability can be local as well as worldwide. What we need are reliable sources that focus primarily on this vineyard to establish local notability. Added to the article per a Google news search... not just San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle, but a Virginia paper, The Virginian-Pilot as well [51], devoted full articles to this winery. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate shooting you down but your link is misleading. First, you need to weed out all the links that just use Vineyard or Byington...doing so cleans things up a bit [52]. Also, the San Jose Mercury News article isn't viewable however I will conceed it may constitue a coverage IF the entire article was about them. The San Francisco Chronicle article gives them a fairly small mention as part of a trip the report took...again, trivial at best. Another article just mentions them with a bunch of other local winerys but doesn't make any more note of them....again...not sufficient coverage. The Virginian paper mention was from 1995... Over ten years between one newspaper article and another newspaper article does not notability make. Oh, the SFC does not have any full articles on just this winery...I've looked. All are in passing, are event announcements, business listings...trivial. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 08:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not providing a better Google news link, merely trying to show where I got my 5 references from. There are 3 San Jose Mercury News articles (which one are you referring to?), all 5 articles have the winery in the title, I fail to see how this doesn't constitute significant coverage? We've established notability with fewer references before. I can add more. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SFC does not have any full articles on just this winery. You put down the first reference as from them but it's from the mercury...not the SFC. Also, "best of show at the 11th annual Santa Cruz County County Fair Commercial Wine Judging"... a county fair judging? Not really an national or international award. There are many local businesses that have almost daily articles in the most distributed local paper in the state however that does not defer notability. Multiple independent sources. The SJMN articles are from one source. The SFC articles are all trivial or in passing. I'm just not seeing notability. I'm sorry.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 08:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you following the links for the references in the article that I added, or looking at the Google news search? All of the articles I linked are fully about the winery, including the Chronicle, and not passing mentions. If you are unable to view the content of the articles, is there any way I can send you the contents without violating copyright? ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #1 is [53]. It is from the THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE so I take back my statement about them not having a full article on the winery. It's newspaper gimic that they send a report our to a different random local winery every so often so this may be a questionable coverage.

Ref #2 is [54]. from the San Jose Mercury News (and being San Jose and San Fransico are so close, this is still just local coverage) about buying more land and upgrading the facilities.

Ref #3 is [55] and is from 1990. all about the opening of the winery from the the San Jose Mercury News. again.

Ref #4 is [56]. Coverage from 1995 which is basically an opinion column article about a wine tasting a report had after they stopped at a local liquior store where the winery owner was handing out samples of his wine. Not sure this is notable coverage.

Ref #5 is [57] from 1994 about winning a county fair prize... I've won best of show for salsa at a county fair, but it doesn't make me or my salsa notable. Again the San Jose Mercury News is there.

Thats because the media didn't write about your salsa. If they did, then you would have one media reference and be on the road to notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the local media did but personally I believe local county fair awards are silly to base notability on. State fairs, however, are a different story. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I don't see notability. We have the San Jose Mercury News covering a local winery alot. We have the SFC covering a randomly selected LOCAL winery and reporting on the wine and service. We have a reporter from virginia stopping by a liquior store for a wine tasting and writing about it...from 1995. Nothing here seems notable. (EDIT: Note to self, autosigning bots are more trouble than they are worth)--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the links. I've added 2 more references to the article, with cited claims establishing notability from 2 different sources (one unfortunately is still the Mercury News, but it's a reliable source anyway.) I think the total number of references and the depth of coverage (there are still more I can add, but I'm getting tired) establish notability well, since it can be on a local level. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't see how lots of local newspaper coverage from the SJMN, one questionable SFC article, and another questionable wine tasting article constitued significant coverage. The article may be kept based on these articles, but I just can't change my initial thoughts that this is just a non-notable winery with some local coverage and has a random article writen over 12 years ago about a wine tasting. I'm sorry but I just disagree. All this means is the winery could be buying newspaper coverage from the SJMN (which does happen), though they are spaced out over years. I don't believe a few local newspaper stories makes something notable... I'm not changing my mind on that however we can agree to disagree. At least you did make an effort to improve the article. I've changed my mind. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 09:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes notability Elmao 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and verifiable. Coverage by an area newspaper is still coverage, local coverage would be more like those local shopping papers, which would also still be coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and add to WP:DAFT. krimpet ⟲ 08:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. place names not connected to Sweden[edit]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this article was created as a point about this one. Not a meaningful category for a list, wasn't sure if fits speedy so bringing it here. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this list nicely complements List of U.S. place names connected to Sweden and ensures that WP:NPOV is upheld by allowing all places to have equal recognition of their names. MSDude! 07:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC) — MSDude! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Completely worthless and unencyclopedic.--Michig 07:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there is a need for this list, I'm not seeing it. We may as well have a List of songs not written by Bob Dylan or perhaps a List of films that Chuck Norris does not appear in. --Bongwarrior 07:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this article is heaps good, should be a featured list given a bit of time. Definitely ensures WP:NPOV is upheld in ensuring that all places receive equal recognition for their name AnObviousSockpuppet 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add to the List of articles that have been deleted from Wikipedia. Somebody's playing games here and wasting people's time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POINT. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no purpose for this article at all (nor sources, come to that) B1atv 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reminded of the sentence "Flemish Giant Rabbits do not wear red neckties" (roughly translated from Norwegian) which was used as an example of a statement which is true, but is on a level of detail so high and inconsequential, that it becomes ridiculous. Quite frankly, Wikipedia needs to be far more concerned about what is, rather than what is not, unless there is a good reason to include the "is nots". That Montgomery, Alabama is not connected to Sweden is of zero consequence, and zero use. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow grab[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. JavaTenor 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Zchris87v 05:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete also per WP:MADEUP and non-notability. ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP (which is not a speedy criterion). If remotely sourceable, merge and redirect to school prank with all the rest. --Dhartung | Talk 07:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are unverifiable. NawlinWiki 12:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE, and WP:RS, among probably lots of others, and possibly SPEEDY per CSD#A7 (and WP:SNOW), but did anyone other than me find this one completely hilarious? Just the image of a half-dozen football players surrounding a cowlicked pencil-neck sort of guy, all moving in extra-slow motion as they luuuuuuuuunge for his pizza? I wish the bullies when I was in school were this ridiculous. I am considering a vote for WP:SILLY. Deltopia 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, no reason to keep this at all. Burntsauce 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith T. Monda[edit]

Delete: No assertion of notability or evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly not notable yet. Plus some people may have seen this article was added to the artists stub template - one way of drawing attention to yourself, with this result. Johnbod 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I entered this page but certainly am not interested in violating the spirit of Wiki, and love that this actually gets debated. What sort of verification is acceptable for notability (have seen old medium write ups but am having trouble finding electronic versions: perhaps a certain testament to the provincialism of certain quarters of the art world)... Perhaps more philosophically, at what level is an artist deemed sufficiently notable? EJMarey 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)EJMarey[reply]

Answer: see WP:N and WP:BIO especially the "Creative professional" section under WP:BIO for more info. --Sc straker 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --Sc straker 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see it go but...: Thanks for pointing out these sections: got me up to speed much quicker. I suppose I'll contribute in more populated waters for the time being... A follow up question (and thanks for the civility and patience with this neophyte), should further press, etc. be produced on this artist is it okay to re-submit later?

As for Johnbod's artist stub point, I think that was a mistake on my part: didn't mean to over-submit and am not the artist or a shill. Just new to Wiki EJMarey 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when there is sufficient further material, re-create the article in your user apace, and ask at WP:Deletion Review for restoration of your new version. DGG (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I would think his career needs to develop considerably for him to be notable - the odd notice in a local paper is not enough. Johnbod 14:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Birt[edit]

Wikipedia is not a site for advertisement or self-promotion Inkishush 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has sources to it, but the entirety of the article seems like self-promotion, or fan promotion. Zchris87v 06:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No context, self promotion. - Rjd0060 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: Article is not self-promotion. Information provided on individual is useful and necessary. - Oorg 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion and non-notable. - plloydlarsen 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here! with Josh and Sara[edit]

Non-notable podcast. No sources other than itself and another blog cited. Few relevant Google hits. Contested prod. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing found in Google news search. --Sc straker 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced self promo for a NN podcast. - Rjd0060 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gone! Not notable in the least.--Sethacus 20:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeoprophylaxis[edit]

Effectively a POV fork of a section of Homeopathy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect back to Homeopathy until proper sources are presented. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Yet another POV fork. This is a rehashed variant of the nosode/sarcode concept, which is already covered at homeopathy. Kill it with fire, I say. Skinwalker 16:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that it even deserves a redirect as it seems to have a very small profile in keyword searches. ScienceApologist 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable POV fork created to push an agenda (as is usual with such forks). Moreschi ^Talk 22:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV forks of already-controversial articles are bad. This article is a POV fork of a controversial article. The use of homeopathy as an alternative to vaccination can and perhaps should be discussed in homeopathy or anti-vaccinationism. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 11:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bad because it is a POV fork, and bad because it is one of those cases where people forget that being neutral about crap doesn't prevent you from calling it crap.Kww 16:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, Most of the info is unsourced and already exists in one form or another in the Homeopathy article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra (Review) 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stone fox[edit]

~~No explanation of notability of book, author has no article or oncoming links, prod was removed.~~ Rigadoun (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom, notability established below. Rigadoun (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Reads like a review or book-jacket blurb. Not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - no sources, no reason for notability, no reason this article should stay. Zchris87v 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, has anyone actually done any research into this? 270 Amazon customer reviews seems to suggest that this book may deserve an article. I'll see what else I can find. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. For starters, there this, which suggests the book is widely taught in schools. Plus the following should firmly establish notability:

An obituary of Gardiner which refers to the book as a "best-seller" and "true modern classic"
A review (albeit a poor one) of a made-for-TV movie based on the book
Several mentions in scholarly works
It was named a New York Times Notable Book of the Year for 1980 (Nov. 30, 1980. p. BR4)
It's also mentioned in the book 100 Best Books for Children. I say Strong Keep, although the page should be cleaned up and moved to Stone Fox. Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Excellent work, Zagalejo. The author does have an article, it just wasn't wikilinked within the article and was misspelled). Bláthnaid 10:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, the spelling threw me off. Clearly notable; withdrawing nom. I added some of the stuff Zagalejo pulled up to establish that in the article. Thanks, Zagalejo. Rigadoun (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fendelman[edit]

This self-promotional article was recreated after a Speedy Deletion by a suspected sock of the subject of the article, see here. The subject was himself the author of the first incarnation of this article, and the content this time is substantively identical to the prior version, as best I can recall. The subject's particular notability fails when it's seen that he works for a small start-up company which posts up press releases from companies for pay, and maintains a film news in Chicago site which he had spammed all over wikipedia, until editors noted and stopped his actions, at which time he started socking. SInce then, it appears he's begun to freely contribute to Rotten Tomatoes, using the 'credibility' from that to validate his own site, and by extension his article. ThuranX 03:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, if this behavior continues, salt. An "accredited" film critic? humblefool ® 04:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, and I smell another sock puppet... Zchris87v 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy, if this is a recreation of deleted material then it's a CSD G4, speedy delete & salt. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, NN, agree with above delete comments. Iamchrisryan 10:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards, not to mention the severe conflict of interest that has compelled the editor to constantly dodge consensus to exclude his information. I would suggest extending the favor of deletion to HollywoodChicago.com as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and add a dash of salt. RFerreira 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever[edit]

A short discussion at Talk:Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever after a request for wider attention ended up with 4 editors including myself seeing it fit for deletion, with another saying "if you delete this article then you'll have to delete the article 'films considered the greatest ever'." However Films considered the greatest ever and Television series considered the greatest ever have been proposed for deletion before, the former twice, and those are the only reasons I'm posting this here instead of slapping {{prod}} on it. It is seen as weasely and "only miscellaneous opinion from various sources", and therefore not encyclopedic. -- Reaper X 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Total WP:NPOV violation. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Neutrality would seem to be an issue, but it is actually sourced information. Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This article is opinionated (seriously, Cameron Diaz?) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment now what the heck are you talking about, there's no original research on that page, they're all cited. And the only time it violates WP:NOV is when people complain about what actors and actresses are on the list, like when they write things like "(seriously, Cameron Diaz)". That vote shouldn't count--AKR619 00:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Now who the heck made you decider of what "votes" count or not? Please remember that this isn't a vote, it's an attempt to establish concensus. I think that what people mean by it violating WP:NPOV is that you just can't claim something to be "the best". You can claim it recognized by certain award and whatever person, but you can't claim it's the best.--Slarti (19 92) 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frank Welker?! Shows the total lack of clearcut criteria. Weak keep IF cleaned up. Many of these selections are not for best actor, but for box office receipts. And where the heck are Laurence Olivier and Alec Guinness? Clarityfiend 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jim Carrey?! The difference between this article and the other two mentioned is obvious. humblefool® 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment now those kinds of vote shouldn't count, you don't see me nominating films considered the greatest ever because there are movies which I didn't like on it.--AKR619 08:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment please remember this isn't a "vote", this is an attempt to develop consensus. -- Reaper X 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article is more N.P.O.V then the other two articles.--AKR619 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you mean more NPOV? Because you're basically saying it's less neutral than the other two articles, therefore making it a strong reason to delete. -- Reaper X 04:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, sorry --AKR619 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing encyclopedic about a "greatest ever" in the arts or media. It is too subjective a topic, even when using awards, monies grossed, etc. LonelyBeacon 04:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. When you have something like "highest grossing actor" it really doesn't mean they're the greatest. Plus, no offense to Frank Welker, it's kind of dumb having him on when he's technically not an actor. --Plasma Twa 2 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well why didn't you just bring it up on the discussion page rather then nominating it for and voting for it to be deleted.--AKR619 08:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV just by its premise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Man It's So Loud In Here 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment now that kind of votes shouldn't count--AKR619 08:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)--AKR619 08:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment ~~Fuck you, who put you in charge?~~ sorry, self-diagnosed manic depressive here. Man It's So Loud In Here 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Be civil. -- Reaper X 20:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject matter itself is something so incredibly subjective. Though it may be hard to deny that some actors or actresses are good, there is no reason for a list of what a group of independent sources cite as the "greatest actors ever". The result of the discussion of a similar article about songs considered the "greatest ever" was that each portion about the song could be put into that song's article. Here, each poll or decision leading to this actor/acress being voted/picked as the "greatest ever" can be put into that article. If they're the greatest ever, wouldn't people be searching for them more than less well-known actors/actresses? Zchris87v 05:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frank Welker is on the list, but Marlon Brando isn't. Crazysuit 06:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf your going to contribute to this, you should put more then that. Makes it seem like your just saying delete cause your favorite actor isn't on the list. --Plasma Twa 2 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment now that kind of vote shouldn't count either, you don't see me nominating films considered the greatest ever just because my entries, like Shrek and ALaddin, aren't put in.--AKR619 08:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and adheres to WP:NPOV AnObviousSockpuppet 07:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Considered the greatest ever is a much too indisciminate criteria, since the sources for such consideration are not defined. We could, for example, end up with non-notable people ending up in there because they've been considered "the greatest ever" by a college magazine. An article such as Actors/Actresses who have been cosidered the greatest ever in notable polls carried out by notable organisations would be acceptable (albeit with a bit of an unweildy title), or alternatively Actors/Actresses who have won major awards would also do (provided that "major awards" was properly defined in the article)but this article is just to vague and subject to POV. A1octopus 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems very weasely in places i.e. 'sizeable populace of people'. Results of polls and statistics arent a good basis for a wikipedia article. The poll results included is currently very subjective and only covers North America. Leading a poll cannot be considered a reliable source to be included under the banner 'considered the greatest ever' because there is no guarantee that those polls were conducted reliably and represent a fair cross section of people as they were not conducted by professional research institutions. Stating that an actor who has won the most MTV Movie Awards belongs in this article is pure POV. --Neon white 13:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Neon White put it best. Even if the sourcing is good, and it is uses some self-defined criteria, every country on Earth wuold have to be included with their personal opinion. The article as written, is biased to the North American film industry. Trying to write this without bias would involve an unbelievably long and complicated article that would still be as subjective as it is now towards selecting films for inclusion. LonelyBeacon 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well now on the page, I put up poll results from Asia and the UK, I'll put up polls from other coutnries and continents as soon as I find them. --AKR619 05:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you missed the point. Polls cannot be considered a source for the claim 'greatest' (which is a subjective term and therefore not a NPOV). They only show the most popular. The most popular is not equivalent to the greatest. Unless you can cite an article that says the artists in question are considered the greatest than the page has no reliable citations. --Neon white 18:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, because there should be plenty of "greatest actors and actresses" list available to expand references, although perhaps could be divided up more into stuff like Greatest actors of modern times, Greates comedy actors, etc. for which sources clearly exist (please check the reference external links section of the article a few moments after I post here as I am going to add sources in a moment). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list that will grow out of control and what will be considered a proper source for these statements. Considering the current pop culture fad of making list this could grow out of control. Ridernyc 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when the pages of both films and television considered the greatest ever started they went out of control, but there were users (including myself for the latter) who kept them both in control, keeping a closeful eye on the pages. I promise I will do the esact same thing and make sure that this page doesn't get out of control. To be honest I'm surprised it hasn't already --AKR619 05:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these lists never seem very conclusive and seem to end up just being places for people to add their favourite things using poor references. The rules for inclusion often seem to be invented by the page creator, which is surely POV. Bob talk 09:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously out of place on Wikipedia. And I like Jim Carrey's work. — dorf⁠, was: aldebaer 10:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some lists are inherently unmanageable, and this is one. DGG (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the entry criteria sound robust, on closer inspection they become very loose. These sorts of phone-in polls are subject to organised vote stacking, and critics' opinion is inherently subjective. In the end the list just amounts to an arbitrary list of popular actors. Sam Blacketer 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon further reflection, while I still think this article, as is, needs to be deleted, I wonder if there is not some alternative. A1octopus put forward an idea: perhaps if a tightly defined group of reputable publications were put forward, the list could be re-titled more appropriately to something like "Actors/Actresses who have won polls". This could be made even better if a very conserted effort were made to make sure to not only include media from outside the U.S, but from outside Europe as well. I think one of the big hangups (it is with me) is the title. If we call it what it is, I think it could be an interesting list for pop culture researchers. Doing so might also take care of the issue of this list never being conclusive. Bob also brings up that the criteria that limit inclusion become a POV issue. Perhaps this too can be hacked out over time. Perhaps if interested parties began coming up with a new title and ways to have some objective limitations on what is included, there could be hope. Otherwise, I think it needs to go. LonelyBeacon 12:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subjective on its face and amateurish. Surprising it lasted this long. Inthegloryofthelilies 15:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NPOV (greatest actors and actresses ever according to who?). --Slarti (1992) 21:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so does Films Considered the Greatest Ever, but I don't hear you complaining. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Films that have been considered the greatest ever has already been taken to AfD. The discussion resulted in a clear consensus to keep. So editors must of seen it as more neutral than this one somehow. -- Reaper X 06:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would have "complained" had I known about it. Besides, that's starting to sound like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (not exactly but along the same area). --Slarti (19 92) 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are deficiencies with this page; it certainly is not comprehensive, and some of the references are not on point, but it can improve and will improve over time. I've participated maintaining Films considered the greatest ever for a few years, and it started out in much worse shape than this page. It is possible to create a comprehensive list of actors and actresses that have been cited as being the best. A wiki is possibly the best forum to create such a list. If we throw away lists like these before they have matured, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The best thing to do with this page in its current form is to post warnings of its shortcomings and incompleteness, thereby encouraging more user input. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not signing, it was not intentional. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ferocia[edit]

Highly non-notable musician - only vaguely asserts notability. A google search comes up empty with only 95 ghits. Autobiography, see WP:COIN#Alexander Ferocia. I'd probably say it's a borderline speedy. MER-C 03:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't perceive an assertion of notability. I couldn't find any specific criteria in WP:MUSIC for disk jockeys or producers, so he probably needs reliable third-party sources attesting to his importance like any other person would. Of course, in this case there are no sources, and Google suggests it may be hard to find more. EdJohnston 03:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably could make a case for speedy on lack of context, but definitely not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. NO reliable sources. Iamchrisryan 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability under WP:Music. A1octopus 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Frary[edit]

Subject does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO. Appears to be a self-written promotion, reads like a resume. No asserted notability. SkerHawx 03:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable nationally, and barely even locally. humblefool ® 04:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, looks like self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Notable, POV, questionable sources listed. Iamchrisryan 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Notable, does appear to be self-promotion.--Gr gal1993 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure by nominator. Deor 03:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuma Kogen Observatory[edit]

D'oh. Not enough sleep lately. I obviously should just have redirected it. Withdrawing nomination. Deor 03:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Nominated version was a poor stub but the current article is quality encyclopediac material. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H.H. Risley[edit]

Orphaned stub article, subject lacks notability, doesn't assert importance ("did extensive work" isn't quite enough), fails WP:BIO. SkerHawx 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Doesn't even properly assert notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do some due diligence before voting. At least a Google search. VFD means there are no references anywhere, not just in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Fails WP:BIO. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 06:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Risley performed the first ethnographic survey of India and his 1901 census continues to receive critical attention today. "The first systematic study of the classification of Indian races was undertaken by Sir Herbert Risley in 1901. In spite of its many lacunae it was regarded as a landmark in the study of the people of India." -- 2001 Census as Social Document. There are over 600 Google Books references for either "H.H. Risley" or "Herbert Risley" (as he was known after knighthood). --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dhartung. Things before the Clinton administration still count for something, even here. Nick mallory 09:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's notable enough for Britannica, he's notable enough for me as well. Keep (and probably rename to Herbert Hope Risley). - Mike Rosoft 09:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Herbert Risley is best (the ODNB calls him that). Most of his life he was "H.H." (common for scholars of the era) but later became "Sir Herbert". His middle name almost never appears and his middle initial never (when addressed "Sir") unless in "H.H." --Dhartung | Talk 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see assertion of notability - "landmark census", "was influential in". Bacchiad 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let me quote from the lovely WP:NN: "Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability". Guess what, this article was adapted from the article on Herbert Risley from the 11th edition of Encyclopædia Britannica [58]. ~~Article deletion nomination is getting horribly out of hand it seems.~~ --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not charging bad faith; the nominated version was a weak stub. But I wish people would at least check a search engine, particularly for historical figures. --Dhartung | Talk 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now see indeed that the article was first nominated here, then improved, but only then properly tagged for deletion. I missed the fact that the AfD tag was missing for a while. I've struck my remark. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung & Cpt. Morgan. If it's in Britannica it's notable.--Cube lurker 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. President of a Royal Institute should be enough to qualify him as an academic, I think. —David Eppstein 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it didn't demonstrate notability before it was nominated, it sure as hell does now. Burntsauce 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 08:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fabric discography[edit]

I don't see how this is notable. Is really necessary to have this article in Wikipedia? Basically, are a bunch of CDs released by a club of London. And probably is a copyvio (songs have copyrighs).--Tasc0 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dind't nominate the related articles because it's a big list (the two series). If this results deleted, please delete them. Thank you.--Tasc0 02:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This was on AfD about a month ago (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fabric_albums): the result was unanimous keep and the new reasoning makes no sense: How is a discography a copyvio because the songs are copyrighted? Huh? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know about that nomination.--Tasc0 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And probably is a copyvio (songs have copyrighs) <- if this were a valid reason for deletion, we'd have no articles on CDs. humblefool® 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is that they released the CDs without permission of the copyrights holders. Just burned the songs in CDs. That's what I think.--Tasc0 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the songs are licensed (and even if they weren't that wouldn't be Wikipedia's problem). It seems like you think these are promotional CDs handed out at the door of the club or something. They aren't--they're internationally distributed mix CDs compiled by some of the most famous DJs in the world. Courtesy demands that you do a little research (like, see if there was a prior AfD) before putting something up for AfD like thisP4k 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, you're saying that with out baking it up. Second: how am I supposed to look if the article was already nominated, huh? Maybe checking "What links here" but, it is the job of the administrator as courtesy to put that information in the talk page.--Tasc0 03:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah I guess it wouldn't be obvious since the AfDs were for the individual albums, not the discography. This is still a shitty nomination though.P4k 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, but that does not give you the right to insult here. Please manage your words. Thank you.--Tasc0 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No rational argument for deletion. The albums are notable and this discography is encyclopedic.--Michig 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please don't renominate an article a month later without a stronger rationale than the prior nominator used. Another example of why we should have a moratorium following a "keep" AFD. The one weakness the article has is sources for notability, but those are not generally something that lists have (that is, they are subarticles of a notable topic). --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, clearly notable. For example, many of these albums have been reviewed on Pitchforkmedia and Popmatters (example, example). The nomination doesn't make much sense. 96T 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Groundless nomination. I don't think it takes much more than a spoonful of common sense to realise that it simply isn't possible for one of the most popular nightclubs in a city to release 76 illegal CDs and still be in business. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This article indisputably passes the criteria at WP:LIST. Whilst categorization is a possibility, as the nominator's nomination withdrawal points out, Mediawiki category functionality means that such articles act as far more than mere lists. The excellent sourcing of the article(s) also meets any possible WP:BLP concerns.ELIMINATORJR 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Note: There might be errors in this Afd as due to malformed afd's in the past this was the '2nd nomination', but really is at least the fourth.

Okay. Let's start from the top. Yes, I have read the previous AfDs. I'm not going to say this isn't verified, or that it's "stigmatizing". However it is, as stated on the page, now and forever will "never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness". Every person on this list can be noted as gay with the reference on their own page, and linked together with categories. I wouldn't consider this listcruft, as it does correspond to an article which is completely valid. However I believe (and further believe Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality bolsters) that the list is simply too broad in scope. Really, gay people themselves aren't so amazing that we have to catalog everyone in it. There are million (at least) in the world.

This is not a pointy nom, first off. Secondly, I think it would help to boost this as a credible AfD by trying to refute some 'keep' "votes" (for lack of better word, don't start me on that) given previously. Things provided for in this list, including nationality, could be put in cats. Some would argue, "but what's the point in 'East African gay blankety-blanks'?" Precisely. Subcats should be "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" for such inclusion, and I think that this shows how in context of a list, this list is once again too broad in scope. Secondly, to cherry-pick User:Dev920's rationale from a previous AfD: "Additionally, it may be of particular interest to isolated gay people to know that they are not alone, and they are not condemned to be failures in life because of their sexuality." Last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a support group.David Fuchs^(talk) 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: As WJBscribe has pointed out, and I have looked at, I am now fully assured every scrap of information in this list can or already has been categoried. It is fully superflous. For example from the featured list: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A: Leroy F. Aarons - 1933–2004 - American Journalist. The categories on his page are as follows: American journalists | 1933 births | 2004 deaths | American dramatists and playwrights | LGBT journalists. So in other words, we know from his article and category that he is gay, when he was born, when he died, his occupation and nationality. So what does the list add? Nada. David Fuchs^(talk) 13:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing nom. Discounting the numerous WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT comments, which really should never be used at a deletion discussion, especially one like this, I am nonetheless swayed by the fact that MediaWiki's category limitations make the categories less useful than the list itself as present. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having just come from a feisty Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction‎, where everyone was extremely civil, cool, and AGF'ed (even in the face of an editor who started off extremely ignorant on all issues concerned and is now slightly less so (me)), I would say that we should be able to do so again here. However, note that this list (or at least portions of it) are actually at Featured Article status (List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: W-Z, for instance). I think it's nonencyclopedic content, just because I can't think of a good question or research need that it fills, and I think it attracts vandalism and contention, but I am not real solid on these opinions. If it was notable with the fictional characters, it will probably fly with the real human beings, though. Deltopia 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I surfed on over to the WP: links you posted, and was amused to find this sentence: "[Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above.]"

Dybryd 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's been debated many times over, and the nom has nothing new to add to the discussion. - Cyborg Ninja 02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed you claimed you read the previous discussions, but I find it strange that you bring up the same exact points again that were already discussed. Why? By the way, this is a list of famous people, not ordinary men and women who happen to be gay as you make it sound. This comment from a previous AfD discussion sums it up well: Keep for many reasons. Firstly, the second point under What Wikipedia is not (the above basis for this deletion vote) states that "[...] there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Secondly, this article is not "hardly maintainable", and does, in fact, list information about when and where some people on the list came out publicly; if not, it encourages their biographic articles to do so. Thirdly, this article isn't "outing gay people"; it has been designed to ensure that a distinction is made between those confirmed as gay and those otherwise debated to be, with each section beginning with a proper explanation. -- Saaga 05:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC) - Cyborg Ninja 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this has been debated many times and kept, the consensus must be that it is worthy of inclusion. This is a notable characteristic about those who are listed, as this is often the subject of attack and controversy. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should probably be AfD notices on all the sub-pages related to the parent document. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: As has been stated before, the list a) contains much more information than a cat possibly can, b) is (being in some cases) verified and referenced c) has THREE featured sublists (A, T-V, and W-Z), d) is actively maintained and updated by WP:LGBT, and e) is of encyclopedic interest. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or someone else explain how this has "much more imformation than a cat possibly can"? If they're gay, the info will (or should) already be in the article. That means the only use if for relational links and cats, ergo, the category. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, picking an entry at random: Mark Adamo | b. 1962 | American | Composer. How can those piece of information be conveyed in a category? If I wish to use a list of Wikipedia biographies so that I can read those of all gay American composers, how would the category help me seeing it will only contain the infomation: Mark Adamo? I would not know whether I wanted to read the article until I clicked on it, making my finding the content I'm looking for more difficult. One of the roles of lists is to aid navigation - these certainly do that... WjBscribe 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see no problem with that... Look at his categories: American composers | Gay musicians | LGBT musicians from the United States | LGBT composers | 1962 births. Every scrap of information about him is already in other categories. David Fuchs^(talk) 13:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree all the information is in the article, but Wikipedia only allows people to look through on category at a time - there is is no mediawiki search function for checking intersections of categories... WjBscribe 17:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should be a category, not an article. All such huge category list articles should be deleted - List of English people, List of Italian Australians, etc. Colonel Warden 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So large lists should not exist is your concept. Can you expand on this so others can grasp why that justifies deletion? Benjiboi 04:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make into a category. There's no reason this should be an article by itself, it's simply far too massive. Out of six billion people in the world, millions are homosexual or bisexual. A category makes much more sense here. There's just no practicality in having an article on it. Zchris87v 06:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't include refs in a category. And, of course, these pages will be limited to individuals notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Zagalejo^^^ 06:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but articles include refs. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone has ever suggested that every gay, lesbian or bisexual person should or will be part of this list. Just as, I don't think that List of Kenyans is looking to include every Kenyan person on that list. If you really find it that unclear from the title/lead then it's quite simple to fix it, hardly a reason for deletion. --Beloved Freak 10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I find yet another Afd for a list which has now had THREE parts of it featured exceedingly weird. It's like trying to delete an FA because you don't like the content. Once again: WP:LIST contains three reasons for a list on Wikipedia:

Informative - One merely needs to put "list of gay people" into Google to know that there is phenomenal interest in such a list, regardless of sexuality. As an encyclopedia, it is our duty to provide information that people want. I started working on this list last November, and WP:LGBT have succeeded in filling the list with almost 2000 people, all of whom are cited with reliable sources. We are still only half done. Because of our policy of citing everyone individually, this list is one of the most comprehensive, and accurate, lists of gay people in the world, not to mention one of the most cited lists on all of Wikipedia. It is without a doubt, THE most informative list of gay people, period.
Navigation - in this sense, this list performs the same function as List of epileptics and List of HIV positive people: it allows anyone with an idle moment to skim through and discover interesting things about people they didn't know before. It is no more stigmatising to want to know who's gay than to want to know who's Jewish, but there are plenty of people who want to know both. The comment that the nominator pulled out of my comments last time was truly indeed cherry picking, tacked on as it was to this statement and never meant as an actual reason to keep.
Development - WP:LGBT has some new and interesting article ideas and other projects that cannot be fulfilled without a completed list. To delete this list would be to put back our project by at least twelve months, especially as we have spent so long working on it. The list further gives us a visual overview of everyone who falls into our scope.

We have been round this block many, many, many times, and the answers remain the same: it is not stigmatising or "outing" anyone, the list is not indiscriminate because WP:LGBT has a set of well used guidelines by which we include people, and in any case "list of gay people" is a pretty well defined list in itself. The nominator's point that we should sub divide such things into categories is an excellent one, and one may note that it was in fact I who AfDed [of LGBT South Asians] for that very reason. The fact is though that people are not being cross categoried as such here, and that a general list of everyone who's gay, as outlined above, is extremely useful as a list as well as a category. Certainly I have learned much from it, and I suspect that others have too. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, then, is the purpose of a list which is so broad in scope it will never be completed? David Fuchs^(talk) 11:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Almost all lists of people, by their very nature, will never be completely and utterly finished, there will always be people announcing they're gay, or epileptic, or Jewish or whatever. That's why they're known as dynamic lists. We're still compiling this one in the sense that we have a list of names here that we (read:SatyrTN - bless his heart) are working through to find suitable references for and then add to the list. When we have finished them, the list will be complete, with teh exception of people we will add as and when they come out/are outed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er - no list of people could ever be complete because (a) people are being born all the time and (b) people are becoming notable (and therefore falling within the scope of this project) all the time. If incompleteness is to be the determining factor, it would seem we must do away with all lists of people... WjBscribe 03:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As far as I can tell, this list does not provide enough for its notability. In my opinion, this is a list of people who happen to be gay. Certainly, the list of Presidents or other rare person is warranted. But, there are many, many people throughout the world that are gay and thus reduces the notability of this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect Changing stance to merge as this is not just a hook-up list but a list of notable people. If we do the same for muslim, jewish or hetero folks, the list would stand and so should this one. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you note the list most of those folks have articles which means notability of each of them is asserted individually. If one becomes famous enough that their sexually is documented there's a reasonable chance they are notable or soon will be, luckily we don't have to speculate as the editors have labored to source almost everyone on these lists. I would agree if the list was every person who happens to be gay but that's not what it is. Benjiboi 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should probably change the name of the article as it does not reflect the true intent of the content portrayed. The new title should be List of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One presumes that each person on the list is notable, or they wouldn't have a Wikipedia entry at all. DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 03:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Although I appreciate this Afd reminding us that all articles are subject to a reader's interpretation and that the LGBT community, despite decades of struggle, still fights for inclusion in history, it's still frustrating that a marginalized minority group has to defend its existence and reference its members before they can be listed as such. One need only turn on the news to hear the president of Iran insist that there are no gay people in Iran and contrast that with regular reports of persecutions and executions of men for consensual sexual activity to know that a list like this is a flare of hope in a world that would relegate all LGBT people to a dingy bar where they would have to fight for every scrap of human rights that non-LGBT folks simply take for granted like the right to have and keep their children or be legally married to the one they love. Please let's end this peacefully and quickly and get back to writing an encyclopedia that sheds light on such issues so that the world becomes a place where a label of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender doesn't mark you for ostracism, discrimination and even death and instead becomes simply another facet of who one is. 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice speech, but are you honestly suggesting that we're trying to make gay people disappear by deleting an article on them? And last time I checked, this was peaceful; there's no need to drag in gay issues to make this AfD into some sort of Supreme Court case. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that just like discrimination against LGBT people thrives in the real world it also is painfully at play on wikipedia. I can't speak for other editors but I spend a fair chunk of time simply reverting homophobic remarks and vandalism and this entire AfD feels along the same lines even if the nom was in good faith that this list couldn't possibly be useful to researchers or anyone else. It's obvious that these articles have been given a lot of positive attention and are well-researched so the issue seems to boil down to is this community deserving of a list or do we need to free this sacred space for something of more importance to you. And speaking of the Supreme Court, it will evidently take a US Supreme Court decision to ensure that the notable people on this list have anything echoing the human rights that others (perhaps you) take for granted. You can pop over to Las Vegas and get married if you wish but the people on this list can't unless they have birth certificates proving they are a male-female couple. Same with family rights including protecting their children and property. It's still legal in most US States to fire someone based solely on them not being heterosexual. LGBT people are killed, often brutally, not for anything they did or do but simply because they are different. You personally might not be trying to make gay people disappear but throughout history LGBT folks have been erased and on wikipedia LGBT folks' bios have to be carefully sourced so we have a glimmer that their lives and cultures are not again deleted. Hence the speech. Benjiboi 04:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi with respect, you are advocating like crazy here. AGF that this is a discussion about suitability for an encyclopedia :) This article won't stop anyone from getting killed. And actually, the Supreme Court mentioned above has already ruled on marriage as defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it's a done deal. I've already withdrawn my vote in favour of changing the article lead (and title name should change to "List of Notable..." as described elsewhere.) You speak of the "people on this list" in heated defense but K_d_lang is on there and I'm not sure she fears for her life. No-one is trying to make you disappear, I at least am trying to make a better Wikipedia. Franamax 09:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do appreciate your comments and have made a change to the lede to add clarity although others will have to decide if it works. As for kd lang, I can assure you her life has certainly been threatened but how serious those threats were and to what extent they were due her lesbianism is for others to sort out. For many who are LGBT just knowing they aren't the only one actually is a lifeline so I strongly disagree that the information here can't help save lives. This list is a virtual gay pride parade through history and easily the best one available anywhere. Benjiboi 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, last time I checked, it wasn't Wikipedia's purpose to be a "gay pride parade". David Fuchs^(talk) 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oohh, but wait, turns out that among many other purposes, one of WP's is actually Gay pride parade. More things on heaven and earth than thou dreamst of, Horatio... Franamax 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great summary of what's going on here. It's the same feeling I got once I read that this list was nominated yet again. When does it end? It was last nominated only a few months ago. The same arguments are brought up repeatedly. Nothing new. But back to the point, it seems the general heterosexual population feels left out. For some silly reason, some think the majority should be just as noticeable and important as the minority. Straight Pride Parades, anyone? And yet still, they don't see what's homophobic or offensive about it. The nom seems to be in the dark about this, too. - Cyborg Ninja 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a couple of concerns with this article. The first is that the article asserts that it only lists famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. That is clearly not what is indicated by the title. I am also wondering how sexual orientation came to be important or notable. After all, the people on this list only have that particular preference in common. What makes that notable or even worth mentioning? Finally, in order to counter bias don't we also need an article titled List of Heterosexual People? --Cyrus Andiron 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A title renaming might make sense but is hardly a reason to delete. Sexual orientation was made notable by religious, social, cultural and governmental entities which segregated, hunted down, persecuted, discriminated against and in many cases killed those with sexualities or perceived sexuality that differed from the majority (ie. anyone not acting heterosexual). People look for this information from famous people and it is regularly talked, written and speculated about. If you wish to write List of Heterosexual People go for it, I imagine though you'll find that it quickly encompasses the vast majority of all bios currently on wikipedia. Good luck with that. Benjiboi 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. While there are demonstrably more heterosexuals than homosexuals, you simply wouldn't have a list of people. Are homosexuals the minority? Yes, so it makes sense as a category. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This list provides information that even an extensive network of categories could not and does so concisely and in an easily navigatable way that is also easy to update. In fact, it's likely the reason the list was created in the first place was that any category is simply a plain list that only generally clumps people together. An actual list that is neutral is certainly of interest to those in the LGBT communities as well as those doing research of the same. There are books on this very subject whereas I don't recall many focussed on famous heterosexuals. Benjiboi 04:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Per Zchris87 above, make a category. Difference in sexual orientation is common. The list contains hundreds of people, it seems like it makes it's own argument against notability. Appropriate as a list for those seeking support in their own lives but that is not notable. Franamax 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change article lead To me it is self-evident that GLBT people can and do contribute to society, a pretty accepted notion. I would reach for the minority analogy (and analogy is NOT proof) that the contribution of Jewish people to society is also awesome and self-evident. And yet there are many such WP lists, and it is not my place to define or undefine a people or group by myself, nor with a majority. I will go to my original concern with the article lead famous people who were or are... - what defines "famous"? The list is all Blue links which makes them notable (for Wikipedia) but not necessarily famous. Change the lead to "notable people" for one. And "were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual"? Were or are - this implies choice - which is exactly what the homophobes among us are looking for, is there still a cure then? Perhaps "notable people who have accepted/claimed/come out(??) their identity as gay/lesbian/bisexual"? Needs to be fixed up. Franamax 09:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is yet another list of loosely associated subjects and it fails our WP:FIVE pillars. We don't need a List of heterosexual people, either. Burntsauce 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE and also delete sub-articles from a-z. I was the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction and one of my concerns were that it is difficult to maintain the accuracy of such a list and much easier to maintain the accuracy of a category because any time the category is inserted into an article, many people who are very familar with the subject and have the subject in their watchlist would see it and might disapprove. The response to this concern was that I shouldn't worry about it because there's no risk of a WP:BLP violation. Well, in this case, there is a big risk of a WP:BLP violation, this particular list that has been nominated now looks like a BLP violation just waiting to happen. Furthermore, this list will never be complete and diminishes the value of wikipedia as a whole by having incompete lists. Pocopocopocopoco 00:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of your concerns have been addressed elsewhere but please further explain big risk of a WP:BLP violation as I'm not understanding how referenced inclusion on this list would be a WP:BLP violation. Benjiboi 07:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Turning the list into categories, (or relying on already existing categories) would make it much more difficult to maintain the accuracy. This list is already in the watchlists of (at least) several people who are absolutley determined to keep it neutral, verifiable etc. If there were no list, there would be potentially many articles added which were not on anyone's watchlist or watched only by people with no concern with the WP:BLP policy. As it happens, User:SatyrTN keeps well on top of articles that have been added to LGBT categories, but it is extremely unlikely that every article added to a LGBT category will have a group of interested individuals working to maintain it's accuracy and verifibility. Thanks to the ongoing work of User:Dev920 and User:SatyrTN to pull these lists up to Featured standard, the verifibility of the sources are being, and will continue to be checked, and any questionable changes can be quickly reverted. Relying on categories would put the onus on the random person that comes along and adds the category because they heard that the subject might be gay, and anyone elso who might happen to have the subject on their watchlist. --Beloved Freak 10:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The people who have the this article on their watchlists know far less about the subjects then the people who have the subjects on their watchlists. Pocopocopocopoco 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The people with this list on their watchlists may know little or nothing about the individual people added to the list, but they are well aware of the WP:BLP and at least a handful are very determined to keep it neutral, verifiable etc. There will be plenty of people on the list or added to it in future who don't have knowledgeable people watching their articles. It's much easier for someone to click revert on the list every time a questionable entry is added than for someone to see one of "their" articles being added, and think "oh, is he gay? I never knew... I wonder if I should leave that on there..." I don't see why we are agruing for a list OR a categories, there is no reason not to have both. With both, everyone can keep an eye out. --Beloved Freak 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) [reply]

- Giorgio Armani (living?) is in the list as "disputed sexuality," a fairly strong statement, based on an interview where he states having had gay sex ~~while young~~(misread this). Does that make him gay/bi? WP:BLP indeed. Franamax 03:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a useful browsable research tool. Maybe you think that encyclopedia readers shouldn't be interested in this information, but the fact is many are and will be interested in searching for people by sexuality.

The fact that it's such a large group is what makes a list useful - most of the members will be in much more specific sub-categories (lesbian writers, etc.) rather than in the top level of Category:LGBT people, and so this will be the only way to view the whole group of articles on one page.

As for the possibility of BLP violations, any BLP article is a violation waiting to happen - that's no reason to delete them! It simply means they require more vigilance on content.

Dybryd 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out above, there are already specific LGBT categories, seemingly for every occupation and nationality. So we are hardly deleting a list with no other way to present the imformation. David Fuchs^(talk) 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A list is a better way to present the information. There is no reason why lists and categories cannot coexist peacefully. Both are useful in different ways. --Beloved Freak 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and STRONG keep - Perhaps the most ridiculous comment in the nom was, "gay people themselves aren't so amazing that we have to catalog everyone in it" - the gay culture has been one of the most influential in the last 100 years. A fourth nomination is very pointy. The last nomination was only three months ago. I question the motivations of the nominator and the deletes, who seem to want to keep raising the same arguments that these lists have survived three times already, in hopes that it will land on their side. It's difficult to assume good faith. Only sourced LGBT people are included on the list, so there are no concerns about BLP violations. As for "attracting vandalism" I don't understand how that's a credible argument since we have a wide range of articles that attract vandalism because they are contentious or deal with certain body parts. It's not a reason to go Lowest Common Denominator. Aside from that, as someone who has had these lists on my watch list, they don't attract much vandalism. --David Shankbone 01:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the lists are works in progress but please check out List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A, which is a featured list, to see the potentially quality that the list maintainers are working towards. The entries are sourced and the page carefully watchlisted for poorly sourced additions and vandalism. These lists also allow brief biographical information about the those listed (e.g. nationality, occupation) that Category:LGBT people is incapable of providing. It seems to me that sexuality remains an important sociological factor - and the ability to look at the nationalities and professions of those openly lesbian, gay or bisexual is academically useful. The entries also include DOB, allowing historical research as well. Like all good lists, they act as a positive aid to navigating Wikipedia content as well as allow the information to be sorted in a way that categories do not. The lists have also been put to good use in ensuring compliance with BLP - monitoring every article is much more difficult than monitoring these lists. As all entries on the list are sourced, a Bot can run them against the Categories - any page that has the category that isn't included on the list should be investigated to ensure that reliable sources confirm the subject's sexual orientation. If not, the category can be removed. The BLP problem in this area is much more centred on categories being added without sources, than entries being added to this list (indeed this reflects one of the inherent failings of the category system). As to adding a word like "notable" to the title - consensus has always been against this. We only include notable content - therefore all person listed must be notable. Adding this requirement in the title seems clumsy and unnecessary. WjBscribe 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this list meets all the critera for Wikipedia:Lists. The fact that it is a large list is not a sufficient reason to delete, see for example List of educators and List of record labels. I agree that gay people are not so amazing that we need catalog everyone who is, but this is not a list of everyone in the universe who is gay, it is not a list of millions of gay people. It is a list of LGB people who are famous, enough so to have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. It is a maintainable list, easier to navigate than a category, and more helpful in research than a category. Queerudite 05:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's pretty much no use for me to state my actual opinion here, because this discussion is rather pointless. The article is well maintained, and has far too much support by the LGBT wikipedia community that won't let it be deleted. So the deletionists can try all they want and it simply just won't happen. Dr. Cash 06:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The gay cabal won't let it die is no reason for inclusion or deletion. If you have an actual point then make it otherwise your comment reeks of passive-aggressive homophobia. Benjiboi 07:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From previous AfD (on the absurd notion some deletionists have made that every gay person is expected to be added to the list): "Furthermore, one would have to be quite dense to both miss the point of an encyclopedia and the first sentence of the list, "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual", and still believe that we are trying to compile a list of every gay person in the entire world." - Cyborg Ninja 07:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (again) - How many times are we going to have to defend this list from deletionists? Four deletion nominations sorely tests any assumption of good faith I might have. Let's close this exercise in divisiveness and return to writing an encyclopedia, please. Jeffpw 09:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per many editors on this and previous discussions, per too many arguments to name. One theme that seems to be coming up here is "why is their homosexuality notable?" or that someone's sexuality isn't enough of a defining feature to group people by. The fact is that for the majority of lesbian, gay or bisexual people, their sexuality has a big impact on their lives at least for some part of their life. I think it's easy for open minded Western liberal folks to say "OK, so they're gay, who cares?" but a) in most of the world, including sections of the US, UK etc, being other than heterosexual is a very big deal, has a huge impact on one's personal life and for many people shapes their life. b) For most famous people, being other than heterosexual is a big enough deal that they have to either hide it or make a big decision about coming out in public. Many famous gay people have had common struggles with their lives and careers that straight people in the public eye will never experience. Therefore it is a big part of who they are, perhaps more so than the average non-famous gay person. (not to downplay the struggles of ordinary folk, but some of the issues faced by famous people are different...) For someone that has become widely know as a "gay actor" (stigmatised by some, celebrated by others) why should wikipedia ignore this fact? I absolutely believe that someone's article should only explore the subject's sexuality as far is appropriate to that individual and how it affects their life, but a list of LGB people has a great deal of informative value. And to the people who persist with "Who cares, so he's gay, get over it already", good for you. I think you're very lucky to live in a world where sexuality really doesn't matter, but most of us don't. --Beloved Freak 10:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well hang on here - I think I'm on record as neutral (I hope) (but not that way! LOL) - but everyone's life is defined by their sexuality, everyone's life is impacted big-time by their sexuality. Everyone has to deal with their "shameful" urges and sexuality is a big part of all lives at all times - check out sexual harassment and divorce rates. You are arriving at advocacy, is that appropriate here? What about those commie-hating capitalist-haters? (Again analogy is NOT proof)

And if the personal article explores sexuality only as far as appropriate, why would another article explore that topic further? Does it become intrusive? I cite G. Armani (the only example I could find lol) as an intrusive reference to his "disputed sexuality" - but instructive of where the article might progress. No-one is attacking gays here that I can see. I think the discussion gets a little blurred by passion but aren't we supposed to be dispassionate when being encyclopedic? And who said that famous or non-famous, gay or non-gay, that we don't all have an equal right and ability to defeat ourselves. Who among us exactly is the special person with the special challenges? Franamax 11:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with a lot of what you have to say but I think that you're either missing my point or I am not putting it across properly (probably the latter!). I don't think that I'm "arriving at advocacy", if it seems that way, it's certainly not my intention. I am absolutely not disputing that one's sexuality has a huge impact on everybody's lives (well most people... I'm sure there are some people who would deny that). I guess what I'm trying to say is that the issues faced by LGBT people can be identified as a particular type of issue. Not saying that every LGBT people faces the same issues, obviously that's over-generalising but, there are a lot of common issues there which make a list relevant. And I'm really trying not to be passionate here about my own feelings on LGBT issues, I just think that when people say that homosexuality is non-notable because lots of people are gay, it's considered quite normal nowadays and really who cares... are coming from a biased perspective. All this talk of problems people have to face is getting off topic, my point isn't "poor persecuted gay famous people, they deserve a list..." Really I am just trying to argue (badly) that being other than heterosexual is notable. Keeping the list rather than just categories has been argued extensively already. (By the way, I agree that no-one whose sexuality is "disputed" should be on the list.) I'll stop rambling now... --Beloved Freak 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See at (if the link goes) User_talk:Benjiboi#AFD:LGLBP cont. for my latest. Must sleep now :) Franamax 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This both, contains three featured lists and has been nominated for deletion three times. There is no difference in policy between then and now I believe, and the list is by now probably better. If I understand what you are proposing then this information will be in a much less useful form, if retained at all. --Tyrfing 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As even the nominator notes, these lists are well verified, the criteria being that inclusion requires a cite to at least one published source. Identification of a person as gay, lesbian or bisexual is somewhat different than putting someone on a list of, say, Democrats or Southern Baptists. Nobody has to worry about the consequences of being identified as a Democrat or a Baptist; nobody has to worry about the consequences of erroneously identifying someone as a Democrat or a Baptist. Coming out of the closet, though more acceptable now, is still a risk in most lines of work. Mandsford 13:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WjBscribe. Fireplace 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Hercules Heman Hulk Hogan Keep - What's next, Lists of African Americans? ~~4 times is enough already.~~ No, 3 times was enough already. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to nominate List of African Americans as redundant and better served with a category, yes. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you would huh? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally superfluous list. Pointing to List of African Americans is a perfect example of WP:INN. Broad lists of loosely associated people are not something I would ever expect or hope to find an an encyclopedia, not even this one. RFerreira 19:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:INN is an essay and not policy or guideline, it holds no weight here. If you delete this list, you've got to delete all the other List Of's on WP. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused You withdrew the AfD and closed the discussion, then re-opened the discussion (I'm assuming not the AfD too since the article isn't tagged AfD), removed some of the comments in the AfD discussion, and did it all per WP:SK, which only applies to closing such discussions with a "Keep" result. I mean, how can you as the AfD starter, withdraw an AfD and then decide to re-open it? If you've only re-opened the AfD discussion, what's the point of that if there's no AfD? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that I can only close such a nom early if there is a speedy keep result; as there are delete votes, then I should let the AfD run it's course. If you had read WP:SK, you would have figured that out too. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be a smartass about it. Closing an AfD and Withdrawing an AfD are 2 different things. You nominated the AfD and then you withdrew the AfD and therefore, this discussion should be closed and done with. That's all I'm saying. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of an article at AfD's views are no more important than anyone else's - so the fact that they change their mind should be no more important than if someone else does. There are a number of editors who support deleting this list who have not withdrawn their opinions. Nominator begin discussions but they cannot end them unilaterally unless there have been no other delete opinions. WjBscribe 01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if this AfD discussion is still open (did the nom withdraw it, or not? It's very confusing.) Keep for all the reasons above, which are basically the same reasons in the previous three AfDs- because all the entries can be cited, because glbness is in fact newsworthy, as evidenced by the frequency of 'outings' in the news, and because the list has uses that are not filled by the category. Does a time come when we can say that consensus supports keeping this list, and we don't have to have any more AfD discussions of it? I mean, unless the list significantly changes or Wikipedia's standards significantly change, how many times do we have to debate this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - The lists justify themselves at the top of each entry by stating why the notability of sexual orientation is important. These lists are painstakingly referenced, maintained, and kept vandalism-free. I find them useful and informative. I'm at a loss as to why this is once more up for deletion. With four deletion discussions, I can't imagine mustering the effort to elaborate on why something should be deleted so many times unless its existence gave me the energy to do so through anger or offense. --Moni3 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
Keep - Useful index. Among other things, Wikipedia's lists serve as indices. See the Math-related lists, for example. Note that a page does not have to be complete to be useful. Many pages of Wikipedia will always be works-in-progress, just like Wikipedia itself. Just because it's not complete, is no reason to delete Wikipedia. The same logic applies to its articles. The Transhumanist 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY & STRONG KEEP This article's last AfD was closed as a speedy keep on July 19, 2007, less than ~~two~~ three months ago. I believe that the nominator of this, the 4th AfD, acted in good faith and for what David Fuchs believed was good reason, and he gains respect for withdrawing the nomination, something that's not easy to publically do. This AfD never should have come up again at all, and especially so soon, after several previous AfD nominations. I !vote a very strong keep per all the above keepers, here and in the previous discussions. As to why there needs to be a list of LGBT people, that's because there is the assumption of heterosexuality that permeates lists and most of life. One does not need to have a list of heterosexual people, but having a list of LGBT people is extremely encyclopedic, and I find it hard to understand why some editors seem to be relatively clueless about the difference, even though I don't believe that they are intentionally so. It's a matter of perspective and experience. It's not that LGBT people are special, it's that LGBT people are an oppressed minority, just as Native Americans, and many more groups are. And having lists of people that are notable because of their minority status is something that readers will want to see. Isn't that why we are here? WP is not our grandfather's encyclopedia, so please lets not try to force it into the same boring mold. And for the millionth time, deletion should be the last resort, not the first when an article needs improvement, and no one has suggested that this article does. When being gay is no more remarkable throughout all of society than being left handed, then I will agree to delete all such articles/lists as being unnecessary. — Becksguy 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that list was deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got me. Good one! (Don't know if I would have !voted to delete or keep in that one.) But I really don't think I'm in any serious trouble of eating my words when people are murdered for being gay, like Matthew Shepard and Michael Sandy (and many many others), or for being Black, or for being Native American, or for believing in the wrong god, or for basically being "different". And that's what we are talking about here, I believe. — Becksguy 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be nitpicky, but lefties were often forced to convert or killed- it was often seen as a sign of the Devil. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I have the affirmation I have long sought that Jesus loves me more than others because I am right-handed. Yay! --Moni3 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up, David Fuchs, as I had forgotten that. Doesn't change my argument, however. — Becksguy 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - list cruft...Non-notable.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this non-notable if all these folks here (including me) are calling it notable? I don't use all kinds of lists, like the Periodic Table of Elements, but because other people do, I can't claim it is non-notable. --Moni3 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

No one cares or at least I don't care who's a Homo or who is Bi. This list is not needed.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about professional wrestling. Let's delete all those articles.... Seriously, you need a better argument than that. Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Monnitewars, unless you are a homosexual, don't be tossing about the word homo as if you have some ownership or right to the word. In otherwords, stop being a jerk and using pejoratively. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, how fortunate that Monnitewars voiced this opinion. In doing so, he's illustrated quite beautifully the necessity for these lists. Imagine growing up listening to an opinion like that one's whole life, from parents, friends, classmates, and siblings. Would that be all there was to keeping someone from being gay, I'd be straighter than Fred Phelps (who is probably pretty gay). These lists go to show that not all gay folks are as rare and un-noteworthy as Monnitewars would have us believe. The people on this list, and compiled in this list show gays to be diverse and notable, serve as an informational tool for both the kids who have to listen to opinions similar to Monnitewars', and others like him. And for those who just can't stand to be on the same internet with such a compilation of notable gay people, that's why God invented the back button. --Moni3 05:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Strong keep per Dev920 and WjbScribe mainly. Categories simply don't cut it. Plus the ongoing work of members of WP:LGBT has already produced two featured lists. Claims are referenced, so there are no WP:BLP issues. Being LGBT is newsworthy and encyclopedic. I simply don't see any violation of Wikipedia:Lists. Keep per all keeps Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just ignored every word I said didn't you. I have a cousin that died from a overdose that was GAy so don't talk to me about hating gays cause I don't I don't like their life style but I don't hate 'em. I just think a list like this is not needed.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 12:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And by the way where's David Bowie... http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/davidbowie/articles/story/8856155/bowie_proclaims_hes_gay |

Re: Moni3. Paranoid? Seems to me that the problem with the 'GLBT people of alternative notoriety pages'lay with the straining at gnats likes of you. I'm simply someone who happened to have somewhat stumbled accross the list and realized that as it says in the preface, is incomplete. Those that I selected are / were well known even to the general public [ at least mostly to those that read or watch the news as being not so straight. I don't believe that even Liberace with all of his glitz, pink hotpants and over the top ifeminate ways ever openly admitted to actualy being gay. I have attempted to verify my edits as requested and have also realized by some of the more positive feedback that I've recieved - certainly none from you and your high horse, - that my verifications need to be more accurate and substantial. Fine. My being a registered member or not of wikipedia in anyway shape or form is not a prerequisite to participation in this forum and what comes accross as an insistance on your part that I 'log in' in order to satiate some strange need of yours for validation and another statement that you made in so many words of 'not knowing much of this wiki thing process' makes you the wierd one and vandel. 72.235.203.202

P.S. You stated in your recommendation of this particular forum that it was, in your words, an "incredible discussion." Yeah, for you maybe and the rest of the bird brains.

C`iao

Reply:It would be more appropriate for you to leave messages on my user page instead of the middle of this discussion. It's not just me or WP:LGBT Studies who may seem inflexible over referencing. It's a conscious effort on the part of all of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Because of the nature of these lists, though, we're held to a higher standard of reliability. --Moni3 11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Comment: Note taken. 72.235.203.202

Comment Why is this list needed? One might browse this list looking for notable gay people as a way of expanding one's self knowledge. Or maybe one has a paper to write about notable gay people and this list provides a selection to chose from. Or one might get validation by seeing how many notable people are gay. All of those, and others, are completely valid and highly encyclopedic reasons for having a list, and this one in particular. The concept of LGBT or gay lists is so obvious and valuable that books in that arena have been written. A few examples: The New Gay Book of Lists by Leigh W. Rutledge [59], Gay Artists in Modern American Culture by Michael S. Sherry [60], and Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History by Robert Aldrich [61]. — Becksguy 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then leave it to the book..this is an encyclopedia, not rumor central.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These aren't rumors that are being posted. If you have a concern with any of the entries or their references, you should bring it up with WP:LGBT Studies. However, no doubt many people like you will dislike the inclusion of these lists for their own personal reasons. Regardless of those, these lists are notable, they are factual, and they are encyclopedic. Deleting the lists starts a dangerous precedent that because the lists make some people uncomfortable they should go. Wikipedia should uphold the quality of research to verify facts within it, but it should not promote censorship. --Moni3 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

What the deletion of this list WOULD DO is get rid of an unneeded list...nothing more...nothing less.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "unneeded" that's inaccurate. Really, no matter how you try to phrase it. It's subjective, and though it's not you, there are people who do need the list. --Moni3 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

To find out whether or not this list is needed on Wikipedia is the whole point of this discussion. To call it "rumour" or to say that you don't care who's gay is not really helpful. --Beloved Freak 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Point is...there's no room on wikipedia on for a list like this...it's not notable.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No room? Wikipedia is not paper, we're not running out of space. Any many people have argued many times over that this list is notable. Could you give us some good reasons why it's not notable? --Beloved Freak 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he can. I think he just doesn't like it. Jeffpw 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers certainly have it here, but I don't think we need to turn this into some sort of strange "If you vote delete on this list, you are discriminating against this group of people" campaign. Thats not only disingenuous, its downright disgusting. Burntsauce 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit underminding me and listen...IT'S NOT NOTABLE!!!--Monnitewars ^(talk) 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WETA-TV as it's the only target that really makes sense. — Scientizzle 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author, Author! (videoblog)[edit]

I think perhaps this would be better on the WETA page as a subsection, rather than its own article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, of course! Thank you for this explanation. Ludwig78 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, if there is such a thing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to indicate meeting WP:WEB. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or 'merge and redirect to WETA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with aforementioned page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs)
Delete as there is currently no sourced content and neither a clear target to merge: The 'project' is of a website WETA.org, which itself has no article. This site is related to a TV and a FM station, which both have articles, while WETA is just a dab page listing them. --Tikiwont 08:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff M. Giordano[edit]

This filmmaker created his own autobiography. He only has two short films, neither of which have won awards,. The New York Times article cited is to an NYT blog post, not an article, and blogs are not reliable sources. While it has been cleaned up and the content about his altar boy activities has been removed, he's not notable, at least not yet, and the article does not meet WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - KrakatoaKatie 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as person who tried to rescue it. Anybody else? Bearian 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the second person who tried to rescue it. After a detailed search, the New York Times article is the only reliable source info that I could find. It is not enough reliable source material to create an article, however. -- Jreferee t/c 08:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Resume, notability to come. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough and kudos to Berian for trying to improve it! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems not notable in English, but in Russian Elmao 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Suicide (Seether song)[edit]

procedural nomination on behalf of User:Nineinchsin This song was never released as a single, no music video was made, no real information about the song and meaning as been made, and any events surrounding why it was never made a single is not worthy of making it it's own page. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling PR and non-notable. Renee 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom - non-notable. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 06:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westland High School (Galloway, Ohio)[edit]

Article does not state any reason for notability. Non-notable high school. Man It's So Loud In Here 01:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that all high schools are notable. John
Delete. I bet this was someone's computer class project. Non-notable. Renee 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. MarsRover —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Highschools have been classed as inherently notable, as long as they can be proved to not be a hoax. Fosnez 02:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "All" high schools are not notable, the policy is to err on the side of keep with High Schools. With grade schools the assumption is "not notable" without a very good reason. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was trying to find this link before, sorry it took so long. Here are the arguments that make all high schools notable Fosnez 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "all"; read your own link, which by the way is not Wikipedia policy, but some user's page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I know not all.. but a good percent of them. Fosnez 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fosnez, and Fee Fi Foe Fum, there have been repeated failed attempts to build consensus on a school notability guideline, but there isn't one. It is best to cite WP:OUTCOMES that high schools are generally accepted as notable. It is probably correct to say that practice is to err on the side of keep, but notability is at best a guideline, not a policy. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I, too, made the mistake of nominating a High School article. WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that high schools are generally accepted as notable. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a high school, according to the article. Trollderella 04:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this high school is clearly a Keep; been around, has the usual large number of students. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a high school, and large and old enough to be otherwise notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs a good rewrite. Though a public school isn't a subject of advertising, it still reads like one, in the lines "available programs include". Zchris87v —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, appears to be the efforts of someone's homework AnObviousSockpuppet 07:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rewrite to eliminate the schoolcruft (e.g. school song lyrics). Why anyone thinks that's encyclopedic is beyond me. At least it doesn't have a mission statement. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relegate from wikipedia until homework is done No. Claim. To. Notability. What. So. Ever. (And. A. Comment: What is it with schools and wikipedia? Generally, corporations, websites, people have the burden of proof to establish their notoriety. Not so with schools: here it seems the other way around, a school has to be proven so small and insignificant as not to be included in wikipedia. I think this is the result of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, the fact that a disproportionate fraction of wikipedia editors are high school pupils. By not having the same standards for schools as for other things, it leads to an slackening in other areas: "Hey, if Bev High has an article, surely the Peach-Pit should have one too, since we spend even more time there than at school?" As far as I understand, this is not how it should be, at least if we go by the spirit shown in Wikipedia:Schools/March 2007) --Victor falk 11:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding as to why schools are different is that if we encourage the students of those schools to expand their articles, we are training up an entire generation of editors. Fosnez 12:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I apologize for not knowing the appropriate policy as regards to schools, I would withdraw the nom but I don't think thats how it works. I have to say that the policy that all schools are notable is totally asinine in my opinion. While it may encourage the youth to participate, it leads to a lot of sub-par crufty unsourced articles on non-notable topics in the main namespace. Man It's So Loud In Here 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, I never heard of that reasoning, that it encourages youth to edit, for the reason High Schools are notable. The most common arguement I've heard was more to the fact that a high school is a significant institution within a community effecting large numbers of residents, therefore being notable. That may not be articulated as well as others, but that's the concept that leads me to support keeping.--Cube lurker 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. It is in need of a cleanup/expansion though.--Cube lurker 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OUTCOMES isn't policy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable high school that will likely stay and will probably not be improved significantly. More time will be spent on this Afd than will go into the article. --Stormbay 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a double standard that makes school articles notable when the equivalent quality of article about a coffee shop that is an institution in a community and affects large numbers of people would never make it past speedy. We need more educators commenting on the high school Afds to give their take on what makes a school notable. In my opinion, it takes more than its existence to reach notability. --Stormbay 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not per WP:OUTCOMES or any other favorite essay you may have, but because it passes WP:N as a notable educational institution. Think Mzoli's. Remember that? Burntsauce 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like where this thread is going..... Fosnez 08:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Wow, it's actually been a while since we've had one of these. Lacking a WP consensus on High School notability, I am using my own criteria. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, appears to be notable enough to include. RFerreira 00:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous well put arguments above and also because of this suggestion. High schools have an incredibly notable impact on their thousands of students throughout the years. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xoloz/Schools provides some history and one person's view of this long-standing schism on Wikipedia.--chaser - t 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons provided at User:Silensor/Schools. Should be developed further. Silensor 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 05:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination Proposed for deletion despite having previously been considered here. PROD-nominator states: "Not notable, self promotion, abuses its sources, most of which are about the album itself and don't deal in a detailed way with this topic." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, this would be a sentence in The Lillywhite Sessions article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the prod nominator. Most of the sources are about the album; at best, they mention the campaign in a sentence. At worst, they don't mention anything or say something like "fans campaigned for this to be released". Basically no articles link here; it's mostly a vanity project, near as I can tell. Croctotheface 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might warrant a one sentence line in the Dave Matthews article, bt is not enough on its own to warrant a complete article. Renee 01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a minor campaign with unproven influence on the outcome. (Wow, releasing Dave Matthews material, what a risk.) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankaj Arora. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Andrew Lenahan; this belongs, and is already covered, in The Lillywhite Sessions. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable fork. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. KrakatoaKatie 05:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie G.[edit]

Apparently nonnotable radio personality. Only one real article linking to it (which will be removed.--Fightingirish 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable. Renee 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and now tagged as such. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. sassy and sophisticated idiocy, indeed. humblefool ® 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and pretty obvious at that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (sigh). DS 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Coullon[edit]

Apparently nonnotable graphic designer. Only two relevant Google hits, both pages of a degree program at Leeds Metropolitan University, suggesting that she is perhaps a student. Zero hits on Google News, Google Books, or Google Scholar. I'd have tagged this for speedy, save that the mention of a museum's purchasing one of her works might be taken as an assertion of notability. Deor 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her work, if significant, could merit it... newspapers someone?JJJ999 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a speedy, and the one slim claim of notability doesn't appear to be verifiable (no Google web, books, or news hits for "Claire Coullon" +Contradiction, or "Claire Coullon" +Tate for that matter). Indeed, the only relevant hit for the name at all is a single photo on a site of some student art course, and it's anybody's guess if that's even the same person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gakusha 00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was going to nominate it in a couple of days. A contemporary artist whose work is bought by the Tate Modern probably deserves an article. Except that claim is pretty dubious. Pascal.Tesson 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. Renee 01:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm coming up against the same inability to find sources as everybody else, and the creator's other article is starting to look fishy, too. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, unreferenced... Iamchrisryan 10:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also, author might be a hoaxer. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it is obviously a hoax of the creator (2 articles) :) Elmao 05:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Spedy keep, clearly notable subject, and nominator unfamilliar with subject.. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMP NHL Winter Classic[edit]

It's just one regular season game with no true significance other than the fact that it's outdoors. It's not like a Super Bowl game; it's a regular season game halfway during the season that has no significance Ksy92003(talk) 00:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Are you kidding? This is a first-of-its-kind event in the United States, and it will most likely set at least the NHL attendance record, if not the hockey attendance record altogether. This is a major event in the history of the NHL. Should we delete Heritage Classic too? How about Cold War (ice hockey)? After all, they are both just one game too. Skudrafan1 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent.--JForget 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Skudrafan1 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, are you kidding? per Skudrafan. Nominator should be aware that NHL games are normally played INDOORS. Stay with stuff you know about. Mandsford 01:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't nice. I've sent the nom a kind message explaining this. Nor was the second edit (edit-conflict). Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is actually a pretty special game/occurrence. Jmlk 1 7 01:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, I think this is newsworthy and notable, but it seems to be a time-bound event that is more appropriate in a current events category. Is Wiki the place for single events like this? Will someone update it after the game is played? (will it be noteworthy then?) I don't know the answers to these questions or what Wiki policy is with reference to these types of items, so defer to those more knowledgeable. Renee 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is a list of results for a non-PPV television show held occasionally throughout World Wrestling Entertainment's history. The article doesn't cite any references for match results in the article, and only lists two at the end, which is pretty bad for an article of its size. I also feel that this lacks the notability to have its own list. The Hyb rid 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. The Hyb rid 00:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of effort has gone into the article, so I am a little conflicted. Maybe merging it with the main SNME page, I could probably find more sources. TJ Spyke 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A lot of effort" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - it's just like listing PPV results.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't a PPV, so it doesn't posses the same notability. Being PPV does matter, since PPVs are used to bring storylines to a close, or to introduce some new steam to it, where as SNME is just used as an extra Raw, SD!, or ECW. It is just used to push them along like a weekly show, and weekly results murderously fail Wikipedia's notability policy. The Hyb rid 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We had a deletion debate about PPV's a year ago and not one person voted delete (apart from the nominator). Davnel03 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree a PPV and occasional special are not one in the same, I'd suggest that many storylines have started (most notably the The Megapowers relationship) and have ended on SNME (Randy "Macho Man" Savage-George "The Animal" Steele feud). [[Briguy52748 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Answer me these two things: 1) Is it weekly? 2) Why all of a sudden is it up for AfD instead of when it was created 2 years ago?--Monnitewars ^(talk) 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer me this, if it is so notable, then why has it been unsourced for 2 years? How long it's been around is damning to your side, not helpful. If it hasn't been sourced in two years, then why should we believe that it will ever be? The Hyb rid 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hybrid above. Nikki311 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Wiki guidelines for when lists should be included. Renee 01:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it fails Wikipedia:List guideline#Lists content due to its lack of sources. The Hyb rid 01:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes policy can be ignored and this is one of those tomes.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're rational for keeping it is WP:IAR? Good luck, The Hyb rid 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Problem?--Monnitewars 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The admins will almost never buy that. I'm just saying, The Hyb rid 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if i can do this or not but I support both sides, Keep and Delete. Keep because it is like a PPV event, but considering how WWE has recently taped many SNME's in one year, it should be considered almost like a weekly show (not exactly but similarly). But I choose to Delete because of WWE taping many of them in one year.--TrUcO9311 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WWE has only done 2 per year since bringing it back (part of WWE's contract with NBC Universasl is that they get 2 primetime Saturday night specials per year, which is why NBC has to air them regardless of the ratings the previous ones got). This is less than previous years: they had 3 in 1985, 5 in 1986, 5 in 1987, 5 in 1988, 6 in 1989, 4 in 1990, 1 in 1991, 2 in 1992. They did 2 in 2006 and 2 this year, they will continue to do it twice per year until their current contract with NBC Universal expires (what happens after that will be up to the two companies). TJ Spyke 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My biggest criticism of the article is its lack of sources, but I think that adding sources makes more sense than deleting the article. It doesn't seem as though the show is being produced on a frequent basis, as there are four events listed in the past two years. Eventually, this could be split between the "old" SNEM and the "new" SNME to avoid making it too long. I've found some references and added them to the first couple of events, so it should be possible to get this sourced if it ends up being kept. GaryColemanFan 07:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but cruft. No notable than any PPV article and lacks sources for specific matches. I would relate this to the deletions of "WWE Homecoming", "RAW Family Reunion", "Tribute to the Troops", etc (occasional hyped events). MITB LS 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that comparison is pretty accurate. Nikki311 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SNME has historically been on a par with PPV's, even above them at some periods. Bacchiad 12:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's trivial, unsourced and not that important for Wikipedia. As MITB stated: this is on the same level compared to other WWE specials. This article should be a redirect to the main SNME article. This is a television show, and isn't as notable as pay per view events. I might just make this article on a wrestling wiki, as that's the proper place for it. RobJ1981 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we make two articles, like garycoleman said, the old SNME (name it WWF Snme) and the new snme (WWE Snme) or something like that--TrUcO9311 14:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to RobJ1981: Actually, I suggest something to that effect below — creating a wrestling wiki (if one doesn't already exist) and transwiking this article there. [[Briguy52748 16:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep - Its a notable special show. It does need to be sourced, but that's easy to do. I also don't see why this should go, but Clash of the Champions would stay. - Eggy49er 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the time right now, but when I get on later I will look that article over, and probably nominate it for deletion as well. The Hyb rid 14:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Other articles existing is not a valid argument. Nikki311 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its more notable than a RAW, SmackDown or ECW, but its definitely not as notable as a PPV. Partly the reason why we deleted similar shows like RAW is Owen, WWE vs ECW Head to Head and WWE Homecoming and the rest of them. Davnel03 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometime I just think you nominate stuff cause your bored.--Monnitewars 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I'm not bored! I AFD pages, not for the fun of it, but because I don't think they are notable enough to seek inclusion in a encyclopedia. Davnel03 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs absolutely suck. If I wanted to do something painful to myself because I was bored, I would just cut myself rather than go through this emotional pain. The Hyb rid 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is non notable in the area of this type of list. It also serves little purpose to debate the whole subject with the reasoning that it should stay because article "x" stayed. The quality of decision making on individual articles does not seem to give precedent much weight. --Stormbay 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it satifies notablity guidelines.--Monnitewars 20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it doesn't. The Hyb rid 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Prove it.--Monnitewars 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, the burden of proof lies on a person adding something (or in this case keeping it)...not the person deleting it. Nikki311 02:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd like to modify my vote to KEEP AND SOURCE.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the value in such an exhaustive list. Nosleep1234 22:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the very definition of listcruft. - fchd 08:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SNME is no more or less important than a PPV (or than a weekly show like RAW, SmackDown! or ECW for that matter). The same things happen at all three types of events (PPVS, SNME, weekly shows) - title changes, storyline progressions, specialty matches, normal matches, pyro, guest appearances etc. I just really don't see how its different. It is not more notable than a PPV. The only difference between a PPV and any other televised WWE show is that you pay for PPVs. --Naha|^(talk) 14:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the only problem for failing lists is that it doesn't have sources, well that can be easily remedied. --Naha|^(talk) 14:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd debate that this event is less notable then a regular TV show or PPV, SNME occur 2 - 4 times a year and have only come back in the last year or so. --Endless Dan 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft, non-notable game. Keb25 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Forgive me, but did you actually read the article? Its not about a game. --Naha|^(talk) 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote either way, but if the result is delete, perhaps someone can transwiki this list to tviv.org. That said, perhaps a professional wrestling wiki might be a good idea. Also Keb25: Perhaps you meant to say, "non-notable event or wrestling program." [[Briguy52748 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep. Notable event. --Endless Dan 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, but "garbage" comments are uncalled for. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beatty[edit]

Non-notable photographer. Serious WP:COI at work as well, user has also created Oregon primate rescue which ~~is up for speedy deletion~~ was speedied as copyvio. "Further Reading" section has nothing to do with photographer, no reliable sources to be seen. Also contains a fair amount of spamlinks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Primary claim of notability is donating $4000 to a monkey charity. Seems like a nice guy, but not even close to being an encyclopedic article subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've researched the "galleries" that he cites. Maude Kerns describes itself as a community centre, Six Days is a sales co-op. Caffe Armadia is a coffee shop. Altman Gallery seems to be a legitimate art gallery, but doesn't seem to have a website. And there are so many things called "Phoenix Literary Journal" that I can't tell if this one is in Tennessee or Auckland NZ. He's cited in various blogs, including many of his own. This doesn't add up to any shows in notable galleries, no reputable third-party criticism, nothing that would lead me to believe he meets WP:BIO, WP:Notable or WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 00:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable PR site. Renee 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, POV, questionable references, like co-op gallery as mentioned above. Iamchrisryan 10:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, I phoned the Maude Kearns Center, and it is indeed a national art competition held each year - there is distinction in that. "Maude Kerns Art Center is a non-profit community center for the visual arts. Our goal is to promote and advocate appreciation and creation of the visual arts by offering a wide variety of exhibition programs" However, listing a show at a coffee shop? He is also portrayed as a travel writer, yet I couldn't find anything published, or released on the internet. I checked out his site, and his photography is indeed good work. He'll no doubt have enough credibility in a short period of time. (Photography book to be published by UW Press in Seattle, 2008)Photomajor 18:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just more garbage dumped onto our project, lets clean up the litter. Burntsauce 23:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Author I completely respect your decision to delete the article I posted. Thank you everyone for your comments, and critique. I am new to Wikipedia and have learned a lot in the last couple days. I hope my "garbage" entry wasn't offensive or disruptive. Thanks again. - Nick Nickleby98661 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Nomination withdrawn - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 02:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drapetomania[edit]

This is a long explanation of a psychiatric condition that caused slaves to run away in the 1850s. I tried to remove Oppositional defiant disorder from the See also as it is a real psychiatric diagnosis and it was immediately returned. I no longer can tell what is real anymore on Wikipedia. Whatever the community thinks on this one. Mattisse 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to Google Books, this seems to show up a lot in print. Probably needs a good deal of cleanup, as most of the article is quotes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Excellent research. I would prefer to see inline citations. And it was correct to restore the "see also". I would have done the same. Some may suggest we merge with Oppositional defiant disorder, but we shouldn't merge related material into official DSM definitions. That would be POV and Original Research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there seem to be a few decent sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a bad faith nomination. Nominator added "quotefarm", "citations missing", and "primary sources" banners to the article, but he is upset that I reverted his deletion of a single "See also" link, so he nominated this article for deletion within 45 minutes of his original addition of the banners with the comment "there is no inclination to fix article". He hasn't given anybody a chance to fix the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like a bad faith nom to me, but this user's edit history has me assuming good faith on the nom's part. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history notwithstanding, he is upset that I stepped on his toes. This instance is a bad faith nomination. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The relevance of the link to Oppositional defiant disorder is that drapetomania was a diagnosis to explain the tendency of enslaved Africans to escape. Oppositional defiant disorder is "a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures". Other "See also" links include Race and intelligence and White Man's Burden. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we need more articles on older concepts and events. Wikipedia focuses on now. I am always surprised how things from even the 1980s dont have articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My problem is that it is linked with real psychiatric and psychological diagnoses and conditions. If the article wants to exist on its own, then fine. We are trying to clean up Psychology and Psychiatry so that it reflects a professional status. This can be a history or sociology article, or some other category. It is not a Psychology or Psychiatry article so it should not be categorized as such. Oppositional defiant disorder is a controversial disorder for labeling children "as an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which supposedly goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior". It is not an adult disorder. And it based on the evaluation that the oppositional behavior is pathological and deserving of a psychiatric diagnosis. It is a controversial ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis because some think it is just a way of psychiatrically labeling problem children. It will probably be removed in the next diagnostic manual update. --Mattisse 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also sense a bad faith nomination here after reviewing the article's history, most likely because the nom is trying to make a point. Clearly the nom disagrees with the subject, but in no way does that mean the article should be taken off the website. - Cyborg Ninja 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said, if the author involved is willing to take it out of bonifide psyciatric and psychological categories, I do not care what happens to the article. I do object to the linking of and article 150 years out of date, and written before psychiatry and psychology existed as professionals fields as they do today, to current Diagnostic Manual and ICD categories. --Mattisse 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why did you ever bother to suggest the article be deleted, especially when you only gave the writers 3 hours notice to change it? And if the consensus is against your opinion, then why should anyone oblige to change it just for you? It is already written in the article that it is an old, archaic diagnosis. If one person out there sees the article and doesn't read beyond one sentence and gets the wrong idea, that is not Wikipedia's problem. Also, bear in mind that there is more than one author for the article. - Cyborg Ninja 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it's considered silly now, it was a theory in 19th century psychology, when things were explained as "brain fever" and "the vapors", and melancholia was treated by a trip to the seashore. This was resurrected in the film C.S.A. presented by Spike Lee. Mandsford 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting historical article. Renee 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also question why the owner of the article within minutes replaces the Oppositional defiant disorder link but is not willing to do anything else to fix up the article. The article has existed since April 2005. If the article's owner were really concerned about the article, would he not spend his energies helping out an article that is clearly needs help? I realize his linking to Oppositional defiant disorder was done out of ignorance, but that should not excuse all lack of interest in fixing up the article. --Mattisse 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a suggestion. Why don't you try to contribute to the article, discuss the problem on the Talk page, or give someone more time than 3 hours after midnight to edit an article before you put it up for deletion? - Cyborg Ninja 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Comment - Here's another suggestion. Why don't all those folks voting keep work to improve the article. As I have stated my field is psychology/psychiatry and I have no interest in his article. I have a feeling the owner of the article would not like my suggestions anyway as it is his article and he calls the shots, so it would be a total waste of my time. Besides the article owner is not interested enough to improve the article himself so I would not be willing to put energy into it under those conditions. I acknowledge it was a mistake to propose deletion. I did not take fully into account that the link addition of Oppositional defiant disorder was done out of ignorance.

I withdrawn the AFD. I will just make sure that on the Psychology/Psychiatry end of things the article's owner does not disrupt professional articles by adding his link. Perhaps his article can go under the pseudoscience articles containing outdated or fantastic topics like the "bodily humors", or fringe article like Scientology. --Mattisse 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is the linking wrong? A link the other way would have been wrong, but this is another article on defiance.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Answer It can be seem demeaning and pejorative to African Americans, just like today the diagnosis is seen as demeening and pejorative to children today. As mention above, Oppositional defiant disorder is a controversial disorder for labeling children as having "an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which supposedly goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior". It is not an adult disorder. And it based on the evaluation that the oppositional behavior is pathological and deserving of a psychiatric diagnosis. It is a controversial ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis because some think it is just a way of psychiatrically labeling problem children when instead the problems should be addressed. It will probably be removed in the next diagnostic manual update. The link would be marginally more meaningful if the author thinks African Americans in the 1850s are equivalent to acting out of problem children of today. But the fact remains that Drapetomania is not a psychiatric diagnosis. --Mattisse 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVuTyWnIohP1X3d3rhDd3YEAqEJg)

[1]