Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Jacoby

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO. Doesn't have multiple independent sources, and only claims to notability are NN films (Butterflies is a possible exception, but that is very borderline) The JPS^{talk to me} 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A prize-winning director. I added references, so I think the article should be okay now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Look's fine to me. He's no Steven Spielberg, but is certainly notable enough in his own right. -bobby 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Cbrown1023 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Award-winning director? Seems pretty notable to me. -- Necrothesp 02:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hristijan

Non-notable biography PubLife 14:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Initially, I added a nn-bio speedy tag to this, which the author removed and added some information about his appearance with 10 others on a Macedonian TV show as a child. Hence, the appearance here. PubLife 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability. :( --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion ^talk 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SNOF

POV rant. If someone wanted to create a legit article, it should probably be at "Slovenomakedonski Narodno Osloboditelen Front", or, even better, whichever English translation is most commonly used. "Slavo-Macedonian Popular Liberation Front", "Slav National Liberation Front", "Macedonian National Liberation Front", or whatever. Could even be a speedy as an 'attack' and/or because if you remove the POV about all that would be left is the external link. Niteowlneils 02:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Niteowlneils -Harmil 03:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, very soapbox-y no cites, no nothing. Xaa 03:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mistercow 06:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 13:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowwen Hèze

no assertion that meets WP:MUSIC - CobaltBlueTony 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I found nothing at Allmusic, but lots of google hits referring to reviews and discography. I do not speak Dutch. :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of the Netherlands-related deletions. -- Ezeu 19:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty famous over here in the Netherlands. Should easily fulfill Music guidelines by albums and notable record label alone. I suggest you drop this off at the music album wikiproject or the Dutch Wikipedian noticeboard for cleaning up. It takes about 30 seconds to verify they're famous (if you know Dutch). The band name might be misspelled though... - Mgm|^(talk) 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this one was translated from the Dutch pedia. Indeed not much assertions yet, but if that article has been around for a while without getting deleted, it should speak for its notability too. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• See Google News. They had an album enter on #1 in the Dutch Top 100. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup --Peta 04:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oslou

One month old internet game with 1000 members. Seems like an advertisement, has 2920 google results but most are not related to the game either. Fails WP:WEB. Lid 02:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa also has no data on this website. [15]--Jersey Devil 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. JIP | Talk 14:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Jensen

From the text of the article, doesn't seem to be notable. Nonpareility 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, its vanity, look who made the page. Dinosaur puppy 02:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gets 586 Google hits. —Khoikhoi 03:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Unfortunately CSD A7 doesn't apply to dead people. MER-C 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. wikipediatrix 03:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, appears to be written by family member Seaphoto 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Not notable, nor verifiable. Why doesn't A7 apply to dead people, just curious. RFerreira 08:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Probably it's just pure nonsense --Mecanismo | Talk 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No reason to doubt the intentions of whoever wrote this, but without notability I can't know -- I can't verify it. --Shirahadasha 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly it's nonsense. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete. It appears real enough, but notability is not asserted in my view. Ohconfucius 02:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notorious R.

Non notable hip hop musician. Only sites are fansites and myspace pages DieHard2k5 23:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom Blood red sandman 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete NN -Steve Sanbeg 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete non-notable bio. Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Major accomplishment is contributing 16 bars to a demo tape. Def nn, db-bio. Leuko 03:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - she met her future rap collaborator in kindergarten! Interesting to note that both had their rap names back then. - Richardcavell 03:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merete Lien

This is a dead end article about a non-notable author. I'm sure her books are very readable in Norwegian, but her books aren't available in any translation. I can't find any web reviews or news in English about her, and there's only slight coverage in Norwegian. The best bit seems to be a page on the local "literature portal" for Telemark, Norway [16]. Deletion looks like the only answer, unless a Norwegian can help out. Mereda 09:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Judging mostly from the cover art, she is the prolific author of a fair number of what appear to be romance novels in Norwegian. These appear to be published by a non-vanity publisher, and the series is up to no. 27.[17] Whatever their merits as literature, she seems to be at least borderline notable. Our coverage of comic book writers is deeper than our coverage of romance novelists, but that's WP:BIAS at work. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No way can we delete an author of at least 30 books as non-notable. So her work isn't available in English, so what? We have authors on Wikipedia who have contributed far less to the literary community. Mallanox 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Television Series

This page suffers from the usual subjective list original research and neutral point of view problems. In addition, it would seem that a category would better fit this sort of endeavour. I'm not using the word cruft, but I see no need for this article to continue in its present form. Erechtheus 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This article would purely be subjective as seen with such shows as Emeril and Joey. It's bound to lead to some edit wars, so might as well delete it. --  Nishkid64  ^Talk  19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. vague and arbitrary criteria ensure this will always be a no original research violation. I'm not even sure a catagory would be suitable here.--Isotope23 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I actually meant a set of categories with objective criteria that would in effect cover the same ground. If they do not already exist, I would like to pursue categories for shows with fewer than ten episodes, shows with fewer than twenty episodes, and so on. Erechtheus 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, a series of well defined & objective categories would probably work.--Isotope23 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While there are certain criteria used within the television industry to define successful shows, there are none that are widely accepted enough to maintain this sort of list. Without an accepted criteria, any listing on this article would be unavoidably POV.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Żydokomuna

1st nom was broken and was speedy closed w/o effect on subsequent noms. My problem with this article is that it's not about the term. There are two sentences about the term, and the rest is a jumble of unstructured speculation. So why don't you so-fix-it, Crazy? Well, the term is inflammatory, implying some sort of causal connection between Jews and communism - so unless this is a bona fide, verified pejorative about which we have lots to say (e.g. Nigger), then I wouldn't propose, but in the absense of all these, my recommendation is Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am open to suggestion this should be slightly merged to History of Poland or someplace else. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Whatever it was anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, the article was not about the "term", the article is about a certain documented and verifiable perception (or conspiracy theory, whatever) in Poland, hence encyclopedic. Of course, as any article on a controversial topic it requires fact cleanup and NPOV-watch. And by the way, there are more than "two sentences" directly on topic. `'mikka (t) 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • >Żydokomuna (Polish neologism for "Jewish communism") was an antisemitic term used to describe the conspiracy theory that the Communism in Poland was supported by Jews to a much greater extent than by the Gentile Polish population. Any Communist group which was considered dominated by Jews counted as "Żydokomuna". The term is similar to the "Judeo-bolshevism" rhetoric of Nazi Germany.<
  • >The term has been coined at the time of Polish-Soviet War, when the Bolsheviks were supported in Poland by a disproportionately large number of Jews.<
  • Nothing more about the term. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You would like to notice that I slightly rephrase yours: you speak about the "term", I speak about the "topic". Term definition is for wiktionary. Wikipedia takes the issue broader. The topic in question is "Jewish overrepresentation" (which gave rise to some other "terms"). One is welcome to expand the article, e.g., with proofs that the term is a misnomer (if this is possible). `'mikka (t) 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So should we rename it something inoffensive and excise the unreferenced reference to the term? How about Jewish domination of post-war Poland hehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve it if needed. That the article is not perfectly written is not a reason to delete it. --Lysy^talk 06:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and research. The term, albeit not positive, is important. --Ouro 07:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improved. Referenced, and appears to be about a real historical phenomenon. Perhaps it ought to also move to something with an English language title, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• stubifiy everything but the two sentences mentioned above. Jon513 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You can be bold per WP:AFD - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miho Iwata

Poorly written article, pages are in other languages. Notability asserted, but WP:V is a problem. Gets 30K Google hits, 14K of those in English. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Jeez, the article needs work and I don't recognize most of the credits, but she seems to have an international reputation and a solid body of work -- I googled some of her collaborators and the galleries she's worked at and there were some solid numbers of google hits (many in Polish unfortunately). I say keep, as a stab at countering WP:BIAS, give it a wikify tag and I promise to work on it. Maybe I can try to find a Polish-speaking wikipedian to give me a hand sorting out the mess. Dina 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Dina's willingness to clean it up. A glance at the source indicates it's not as badly formatted as it appears; it's just not wikified. Powers ^T 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I gave it some love. It still has some challenges, but it's shaped up a bit. Some of the poking around I had to do to figure out has given me the impression that the artist is notable enough, though not incredibly famous or anything. Dina 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to changes and love from Dina. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casalinhos de Alfaiata

Casalinhos de Alfaiata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

View single debate

This is an entirely unreferenced article describing an apparently non-notable location John254 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable place of local interest. -Nv8200p talk 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Towns and cities are always notable, and a famous professional cyclist lived there. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- If this article does concern a city or town, it should state that fact. Currently, the article describes Casalinhos de Alfaiata as a "place (terra)". Also, the article should include references; an entirely unreferenced article is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability. John254 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think that any town probably does warrant an article if someone's willing to write it and if it's verifiable. Of course, this at the moment is not verified and isn't really even about the town. Still, the article is only a couple of hours old; there's no reason to rush to delete it. Keep pending verification - Che Nuevara 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The place does exist. Westenra 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So do I. Where's my article?--Dmz5 07:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's here. (Only kidding) ArmAndLeg 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The distinction terra/parish/municipality makes it seem like this "place" is really just a subdivision or at best a neighborhood....--Dmz5 07:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a large, separate urbanization. Whatever you call it, it's notable. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The place is notable enough to have its name shown on the maps from MSN and Google. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems notable enough according to Google and the link from Joaquim Agostinho adds some degree of notability. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:16 3/12/2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a city after all.
• Keep it's a real city. TSO1D 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because for whatever reason wikipedia has decided that all cities should be included. ArmAndLeg 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cities/towns/villages are all notable. --Oakshade 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jakob P. Steinbach

Jakob P. Steinbach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems very hoaxy to me. No ghits of note for "Jakob P. Steinbach", "Jakob Steinbach Bible" or "Jakob Steinbach Russia". Additionally, the claim about the town name is unsubstantiated, as it says in Steinbach, Manitoba, it simply means "stony brook" Lankiveil 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. No relevant Ghits for "Jakob Steinbach" or "Jacob Steinbach". Neither the UK nor Hanover actually bordered Russia (even in the 1700s), so it would have been unlikely that George III of the UK and Hanover would have punished a Russian Army officer. Creator of article a single-purpose account. Steinbach was actually named after Steinbach, Ukraine, according to the City of Steinbach. --Charlene 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nat91 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Charlene. Mr Stephen 16:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, someone is taking us for ride YamSan 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What a gyp! Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin's Mausoleum (urban legend)

del Read and laugh and delete. It is a political joke, not an urban legend, and of dubious notability, too. Does not warrant a separate article or any mention whatsoever. There are millions of jokes in the world. Wikipedia is not a jokebook. `'mikka (t) 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

merge as proposed on page. On Dutch wikipedia it is listed as an urban legend, not as a joke.Rex 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• BJAODN unless there are reliable sources that this is a well-established urban legend and not just a joke. There are no sources on the Dutch page, either. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No sources, though I must say I have heard it before, and not as a joke.Rex 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable. :) Dlohcierekim 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. I doubt this is BJAODN-worthy. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L231d

Tricky case. Supposedly a Soviet missile project that never reached the prototype stage; initially, that seems fairly plausible. I got halfway through cleaning it up before I checked for external sources, and found nothing, via either google or JSTOR, for L231d or L230, that related even remotely to russian missiles. Furthermore, the article's creator (or at least his IP) signed as "L231d" on a talk page comment, and on his talk page there's evidence that something he created was deleted as nonsense. So, all told, I'm thinking hoax, but I'm not quite confident enough to kill it quietly with a prod tag. Thoughts? --Robth^Talk 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Whether or not it's a hoax, it's probably too obscure to be verifiable. Since Google doesn't register anything about it, it's a fair bet that there aren't any verifiable references that describe it, or even mention it. -kotra 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be verified. Heimstern Läufer 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Delete per Heimstern Läufer and Robth. -Chelsea

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detva District

Page has absolutely no content. (nomination by User:Liface )

• If this is a real place, then, if somebody can write a stub about it, keep. If nobody does anything n five days, delete. Previous content was an ad, which was blanked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Was tagged for speedy delete for being empty, but content had been blanked. After restoring the content, it turns out it's an article about a Slovakian company that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Howcheng. -- ReyBrujo 02:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, misleading title. Detva District (with diacritics) may became real and valid article in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NeoJustin 05:32, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn--MONGO 09:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above VegaDark 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletions. -- Rob 09:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aleksander Malnic

non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete (or else expand biography to explain or at least describe a major result or other mathematical achievement). Malnic has no preprints listed on arXiv and I've never see any papers by him, although I am a mathematician who occasionally reads papers in this field and has studied two standard books. In contrast, I moved Tutte's biography into Category:Algebraic graph theory, his name wasn't mentioned. If Tutte isn't notable in this field, who the heck is? ---CH (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify something--- of course I agree that just because I don't recognize Malnic's name on the basis of my somewhat limited (but nontrivial) reading in this area is not grounds for non-notability. I mentioned that precisely to indicate what I know or don't know, but I didn't express myself very clearly. Again, what I am really trying to say to whoever wrote these three articles is: please either tell me something interesting this person did in mathematics, or in some other walk of life, or else let us delete it.---CH (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify something else--- I agree with Paul August and DS1953 that of course Wikipedia growth will be haphazard and therefore it will frequently happen that some towering figure in field F has no biography while lesser figures already have theirs. Of course, the solution then is to write the missing biography! But again, I think a good biography should not leave the average reader with serious doubt about whether or not the subject of the biography is suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia.---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Now, just because you occasionally read papers in the field and did not see his name is no standard for no-notability. :) This author has 22 papers listed at MathSciNet, but that is I guess typical of a lot of professors. Overall, I would think that there are many much more worthy mathematicians which don't have a page on Wikipedia yet, so I would vote to delete this one. Oleg Alexandrov 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the lack of "much more worthy mathematicians" is not a very strong argument. Nowhere does it say we should (or will) write about the most important people first! ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me put it that way: there are much more worhty mathematicians (like my PhD advisor let us say) who have more papers than this guy but who still don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. :) Oleg Alexandrov 01:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok that argument makes sense. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Paul, are you abstaining or did you forget to vote? ---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I guess I am abstaining. I agree this guy (probably) isn't very notable, but I am reluctant to delete based on a lack of notability. For some background on this see: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Importance, and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. If I were writing for a paper encyclopedia I would have a different view but of course, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. While some are worried (not unreasonably) about the possibility of Slovene "boosterism", I'm also worried about the possibility of first world parochialism. If you forced me to vote I'd probably have to vote keep. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, just to clarify: my concern is not really with possible Slavic boosterism (no-one has exactly come forward to explain the origin of the List of Slovenian mathematicians, but comments from a few users seem to support my guess that some math person active in the Slovenian wiki decided to tranlate a list there into English and port it to this one, without really thinking through the implications), but with making the math pages less useful as an encyclopedia. The discussions you pointed me at leave me unimpressed; I simply don't think they are relevant to the special needs of the math students (at all levels) whom these pages exist to serve (in my opinion). Wikipedia is not paper? The point is, Wikipedia can be better than paper (as an encylopedia), in fact, it could be so good (as an encyclopedia), that it's worth trying to make it as good as it can be!---CH (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the existence of one article, makes any other article less useful. Paul August ☎ 13:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with Oleg that not recognizing his name (from having studied a couple books) is not a real compelling reason. But the fact that no accomplishment of note is listed and there are indications that this is a result of Slovenian boosterism suggests to me that deletion is appropriate. --Chan-Ho 18:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He has published some results with Marusic (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dragan_Marušič) which indicate some notability. --Chan-Ho 03:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless some indication of notability is given. The only accomplisment listed in the article is a PhD. Well, everybody can do that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no indication that he passes the "average professor" test, although I also agree with Paul August that we don't delete someone just because more notable people have not had articles written on them yet. If someone can show me that there is something notable about him, I am happy change my vote to 'keep' even if there are many more worthy mathmeticians awaiting their own articles. -- DS1953 23:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. Dottore So 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tomaz Pisanski

non-notable biograpy CH (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• *Delete. Although I could be wrong, particularly in this case, but if so, someone who knows should expand the biography to tell us about at least one truly notable mathematical achievement of the subject. And yes, sorry, I didn't follow the correct procedure correctly the first time. Thanks to Oleg for helping me out with that.---CH (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He appears distinguished, but not at the level I think is required for a Wikipedia article. --Chan-Ho 18:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a full professor who has been advisor for nine Ph.D. students, and claims to be co-founder of a newspaper[18]. More notable than the average professional baseball player. Tupsharru 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Another question for Tupsharru: if his grounds for notability are that he founded a newspaper, shouldn't the biography explain the signficance of this newspaper? Or again, re the Order of Merit: I have no idea what that means. Shouldn't the article tell me? If this information doesn't convince any fair minded individual that the recipient is indeed suitable for inclusion in an English language encyclopedia, maybe the biography should go?---CH (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Part of the job of being a professor is to be an advisor, so that part is not notable. So his claim to notability, according to you, rests strictly on co-founding a newspaper. Well, is this a real newspaper or more like a newsletter? --Chan-Ho 00:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Part of the job of being a professor is to be an advisor, so that part is not notable. - That is a non sequitur, as it is dependent on how you evaluate things in the first place. Part of the job of being a professional baseball player is playing baseball. Besides all kinds of Pokemon cruft, Wikipedia includes anyone who plays any sport professionally, mostly people of no interest except to the fans of that particular team. This, admittedly, is rather convenient, as it avoids most VfD discussions over sportspeople, so I don't really want to change it. But, to use CH's comparison below, I do not consider a baseball hall-of-famer to be anywhere close in status to somebody winning a major, international scientific award like the Fields Medal. Tupsharru 05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be a non sequitur, but it's one that you brought up! You're the one that mentioned him as a "full professor who has been advisor for nine Ph.D. students". If you are now admitting that it was irrelevant, and you just meant to mention that he is a full professor, fine. But don't bring something up as if it were relevant and then call my criticism of its relevancy a "non sequitur".

As for your position...I was just thinking the other day I would use a bot to input in every professor listed in the AMS directory into Wikipedia. I hope you will support any VFD's that occur over that! --Chan-Ho 16:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! I hope you're kidding, Chan-Ho! Please don't create mindless lists here. Why on earth would anyone want to duplicate here a snapshot of the AMS directory? Who are you trying to help? Disgruntled students eager to spam every math professor in North America? You'd just make a list which would updated irregularly at best, so unreliable, and God forbid some drone should decide to move arbitrary articles from your list into categories like this one. That would be terrible, because we want to help math students at all levels get a quick impression of who some of the major figures in field F are, and of course what their major contributions were. As I see it, that's the whole point of these darned VfDs! I wouldn't bother if I didn't see potential degradation of the utility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the overarching purpose, yes?---CH (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It was not meant seriously. My main motivation in these VFDs so far is that unless a person is just super-famous, they should have some particular reason for being on Wikipedia, so their bios aren't orphaned. If there is an interesting math result that would link to their bio, great. Otherwise, there should be some particularly compelling reason other than "there's already a lot of junk on Wikipedia". I believe that now all the three persons you originally listed for VFD have futures on Wikipedia because they have some results that somebody will hopefully create pages for. --Chan-Ho 03:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Hillman's comparison was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, you've made your stance clear. You are not so concerned with the rationale, but how many VFD discussions you can avoid. I can certainly see the appeal in that position, but I find it sad nonetheless. --Chan-Ho 16:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find it sad that you feel a need to misconstrue what I have actually written. Tupsharru 18:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose this could go on forever, so I'll just stop with this. You wrote right above that Wikipedia has articles on non-notable professional athletes, but you "don't really want to change it" because it conveniently avoids many VFD discussions. Which part of that did I misconstrue? Since you've made no effort to explain the newspaper angle or why being a professor is so noteworthy except to explain how convenient it is to allow cruft, how could I do anything else than "misconstrue" your position as I did? --Chan-Ho 23:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, passes the "average professional baseball player" test. Kappa 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how. Care to explain your reasoning? --Chan-Ho 00:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! Kappa, to me (and I guess to Chan-Ho), the analogies run something like this:

• earned a Ph.D.: made the local Little League team
• serves on the math faculty at some uni: plays AAA Minor League professional baseball
• won tenure or obscure award: got a pat on the back from the team after a big game
• made a major contribution to mathematics: set a significant major league baseball record
• recieved an internationally known mathematics award: recieved MVP award
• recieved Field's Medal: entered Hall of Fame

Do you see what I am trying to say? ---CH (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; does Slovenia have an Order of Merit? this list doesn't think so; and it's not on Prof. Pisanski's resume.[19] Septentrionalis 22:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think you'll find it's called the Order for Services. It wouldn't be on a military medals page. Clair de Lune 02:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Professor Pisanski was awarded what is called Red za zasluge, which can be liberally translated to "Order of Merit". According to a national law, this ranks in the middle of 7 orders and medals that can be awarded by the President of Slovenia, them being "Red za izredne zasluge" (Order of exceptional merit), "Zlati red za zasluge" (Golden order of merit), "Srebrni red za zasluge" (Silver order of merit), "Red za zasluge" (Order of merit), "Medalja za zasluge" (Medal of merit), "Medalja za hrabrost" (Medal of courage) and "Medalja za castno dejanje" (Medal of honourable act). --Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, mostly verifiable (Order of Merit statement possibly excepted). JYolkowski // talk 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Exceeds bar set by precedent. Clair de Lune 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What precedent? The sports pages metaphor? Please note that I propose that we use a more appropriate standard for the math categories in the Wikipedia.---CH (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Random professor Pilatus 05:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable professor. Nandesuka 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — published 80 research papers, &c., &c. Appears notable. — RJH 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear that publishing 80 papers alone makes one notable. I've seen C.V.s cluttered with scads of nonsense or almost identical "papers", even in math. No idea about this man's C.V.; I'm just saying that this alone is a worthless criterion for math biographies. Really, evidence of widespread recognition of significant work is the touchstone. There are plenty of ways to validate that criterion, e.g. by checking for mention in good review papers, in relevent textbooks (using common sense; very recent work probably won't be in the textbooks yet, e.g Wile's theorem took several years to make it into a proper textbook), etc.

I think the lesson which is emerging here is that non-mathematicians should be circumspect about creating math biographies; if you can't convince the math literate users that the subject is mathematically notable, then unless you're writing about someone who achieved notoriety in a non-mathematical context, expect the article to be proposed for deletion repeatedly.---CH (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear lack of notability. Dottore So 18:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable.  Grue  19:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He was my professor of Discrete Mathematics II at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics in Ljubljana. Demokracija was notable (although political, not mathematical) Slovenian newspaper back then. He was also chairman of the DMFA in 1998-1999. I'm not sure what Order of Merrit means, but I wouldn't be surprised if he won some national award. --romanm (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Romanm, I'm glad you enjoyed (apparently) taking the course, but if you really meant to imply that "he was my professor once" is grounds for notability, I doubt very many would agree with you! Founding a now defunct newspaper in Slovenia? Might be notable enough for the Slovenian language wikipedia, but is that really notable enough for the English language one? How many newspapers have been founded around the world in the past two centuries? We don't even have every "notable at the time" civil war era American newspaper listed here, much less obscure defunct ones in other languages! ---CH (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If something is a valid topic for Wikipedia edition in one language, it should be a valid topic for all other languages. That "sum of all human knowledge" thing.  Grue  13:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I read Romanm's comment more as an affirmation that professor Pisanski is a real professor teaching at a real university. But this, I believe, was never questioned anyway. --Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's right, I certainly never had any doubt that he exists, that his uni exists, that he works there as a professor, or the other facts of his life as given in the article. My problem is that no-one has told me why any of that information is sufficiently interesting to belong in an encyclopedia article. The only cure is for someone to describe a clearly interesting/important mathematical result clearly enough for me to agree that P has done something sufficiently notable in mathematics (or for some other good reason) for these mundane details (that he exists, where he went to school, where he works) to possibly interest a general audience in an English language encyclopedia. Again, my problem is simply this: I don't think it should happen that after reading a Wikipedia biography, a general reader has no idea why anyone would think that the subject is sufficiently notable for such a biography.---CH (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunalety, I cannot do that. I am not a specialist in this field, and after having a brief glance at your presentation page, I actually believe I know about graph theory much less than you do. Still, even though I have a rather high oppinion about your credentials, I don't believe the decision on whether to keep or delete a biography should be left to an individual's "feeling". We do need an agreed-on set of criteria about what qualifies for a matematics biography and what does not. And, unless I am wrong, we don't have it yet. Furthermore, as I argue below, I believe that the question you have opened concerns more the organization of articles in a usable manner rather than the sole existance of articles. Cluttering the Wikipedia might indeed be felt as a problem when you browse the article. Often, however, you simply search for a particular article, either using Google or Wikipedia search function. There, having more articles are a clear bonus. OTOH, I would speculate though that the ratio between searching and browsing the English Wikipedia is higher among non-native speakers of English, who often just try to find a particular article rather than browse a category. --Peterlin 08:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I see two principal problems concerning deletion of the article.

Without clearly defined rules, I wouldn't have the guts to call any professional in any field "non-notable". There are of course many possible ways where to cut the list, e.g. a theorem is named after him/her, is a recipient of Fields Medal, is the editor of a major scientific journal (what is a "major" scientific journal? measured by its impact factor?), has published an important scientific monograph (what is an "important" monograph?), won a tenure, earned a PhD, etc. Any criterion is equally legitimate, if it is agreed on. Wikipedia not being limited by paper, I would vote for a wider coverage rather than a narrower, but this is just my oppinion. But first of all we need an agreement about who does qualify as "notable" and does not.

With English being a modern lingua franca, I believe that the "English" Wikipedia should strive to serve as a reference aimed at an audience wider than Americans, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders put together. English Wikipedia continues to grow and mature not only because of the contributions of native English speakers, but also because of the contributions of other peoples around the world. I am also not sure there is a consensus about which topics are interesting and important enough for the English speaking readers to be included in the English language Wikipedia. The argument doesn't hold even if the English language Wikipedia would be limited to native English speaking world. We probably all agree that articles in geography, zoology or botany describing topics not present in the English speaking world should remain in the English language Wikipedia. What is so different with biographies of foreign nationals? I am actually surprised by these cleansing tendencies in the English Wikipedia. Personally, I would be delighted to have short biographies of all American professors of mathematics along with all American professional baseball players in the Slovenian Wikipedia, and the only problem concerning this I percieve is that probably nobody is willing to write them up.--Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Peterlin, I agree with you that the English language Wikipedia is also the default lingua franca encyclopedia, and should strive to serve students and people all over the world. My concern is precisely that allowing unlimited cruft, particulary in the math pages to clutter up the encyclopedia will cause it to become unusable. Specifically: there are enough truly "notable" mathematicians to populate categories like Category:Algebraic graph theory with a dozen or more biographies. I feel that we need to keep the number of articles in each category to a few dozen at the most, but I hate to think of creating an even more complicated category tree than is already forced upon the math editors by the complexity of our subject. This is why I say that we can't get away with applying rules which originate in the sports pages everywhere, certainly not in the math pages.

I take it everyone noticed that after finding one of the other two is cited in a review paper I respect, I changed my vote to a weak keep for that individual. I still feel that the case has not been made that the remaining two individuals are anywhere near notable to require a biography here. They might well be notable enough for the Slovenian wikipedia, but what about the Urdu wikipedia? The Finnish wikipedia? Are they notable enough for these, or for the English/lingua franca wikipedia? I think, clearly not.---CH (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern. But I believe that it mostly concerns the organization of lists and categories, rather than the existance of the articles itself. It is completely clear to me that all the profesors of mathematics from around the world can not fit onto, say, a List of Mathematicians. The same goes for the categories. I believe though that with introducing a proper hierarchy a biography list can still remain manageable. I agree with you though that we don't want Category:Algebraic graph theory being cluttered by thousands (I am wildly guessing the number of people working in this field) of biographies of researchers. But I would move them to a separate subcategory within this category, say Category:Researchers in algebraic graph theory or simply Category:Algebraic graph theorists, then, once necessary, subdivide this category alphabetically, by country, by field of work or by some other means. There can be of course also some wiser way of organizing categories – from the usability point of view, there is probably some maximal depth of hierarchies that should not be exceeded without harming the usability of the Wikipedia itself. As for your other question – I cannot speak on behalf of the Urdu Wikipedia, but I certainly wouldn't mind having the content of Urdu Wikipedia – including the biographies of all Pakistani professors present there – translated to Slovenian and appearing in Slovenian wikipedia. With a proper organization, I don't believe they can harm anybody. Considering the number of people fluent in both Urdu (the situation with Finnish is a little better, but not much) and Slovenian, I don't consider this a realistic option, though. In fact, the most likely way for Slovenian Wikipedia to ever get some potentially interesting article from the Urdu Wikipedia is that the article is translated from Urdu to English and published in the English Wikipedia. --Peterlin 08:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Peterlin, yes, I think we agree on many points. You are right, I have no objection in principle to mindless lists, I just want to be sure cruft doesn't adversely affect the experience of readers who really need to find some information here. Of course it occured to me that one can try to handle this by moving cruft into tailor-made "cruft categories", but my objections to that are:

1. it is all too easy for vandals to move cruft right back, in fact to move articles arbitrarily. You probably know some robovandals are doing just that; so far, this hasn't been a huge problem in these pages, but it's worrisome because even the small amount of this which has happened so far has clearly been a real headache for the admins.

1. 1. to whom would the task of this endless subdivision of mindless categories to organize all the cruft fall? Why, to those who care about not impacting the experience of serious students, namely you and I! I don't have time to spend doing that, and you probably don't either.

Unless "cruft control" can be automated (potentially dangerous, since recognizing cruft might sometimes require expert judgement), I still think it's only a matter of time before everyone sees cruft as a serious problem. Maybe participants in the Math Wiki project should set up a page to discuss formulating an "official policy". I am still a neophyte in such things, so I don't really know how policy issues are handled here.---CH (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, White-Pisanski method is listed in the table of contents of a Dover classic http://web.doverpublications.com/cgi-bin/toc.pl/0486417417. Tomo 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This looks good. I'm changing my original delete vote. In addition, the book's authors appear well-known and have collaborated with Pisanski. --Chan-Ho 03:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• lukewarm Keep. Good work, Tomo, if this is indeed P's most important contribution, the author of the original article (that wasn't you, was it?) should ahve described the result and why it is important in algebraic graph theory. Can you please do that? Otherwise someone else will come along and start another VfD on the same grounds that I did!

Hmm... just noticed that "Tomo" might be short for "Tomaz", as in "TP". I have no reason to think "Tomo" is TP, but this raises another point about mathematical biographies. The Wiki guidelines apparently do allow people to write their own biographies, so long as the article is factual/NPOV, and so long as the subject clearly meets the "notability" criterion. (As I think we've seen here, this criterion might be too imprecise, and setting the bar too low might cripple Wikipedia as more robovandals become active here, simply because the more articles exist, the harder it is to organize them, keep track of them, e.g. move them back when WoW moves them. So even if "Tomo" really were TP, my principal objection would not be to "self-promotion", but to failure to explain why TP is notable to mathematical audience which presumably includes the users most likely folk to be browsing Category:Algebraic graph theory. The current article makes no case at all that will impress we hard-nosed "show me" mathminded users, so, please, Tomo, fix up the article to explain why TP is notable. And why not write a biography of White? And improve the biography of Tutte, someone we all agree is a truly notable figure in math history? TIA---CH (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, He has made several interesting contributions to the graph theory. -- Naive cynic 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragan Marusic

non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• lukewarm keep; the citation in Cameron's review suggests that Marusic is an accomplished research mathematician whose work is recognized as useful by an international authority, which I guess convinces me that M "plays in the major leagues". Although I have to say that there must be dozens more who fit that bill, just in this one field. We need to always ensure that category pages never list more than perhaps a few dozen articles. If we had hundreds of pages on algebraic graph theorists alone, we'd have to have an even deep categorization tree, but I hate to think of getting any more specialized than the topic "algebraic graph theory" already is. Math is complicated enough without letting foolish prattle about "precedents" from the sports pages, for gosh sakes, mess up the experience of math students who could otherwise benefit from this encyclolpedia. The problem is that the more we try to include, the longer it will take for Wikipedia to achieve a more balanced coverage, which is absolutely neccessary for Wikipedia to be a really useful and reliable resource for anyone who needs to find information about some mathematical topic. I mean, c'mon, we need to employ some intelligence here. Clearly standards appropriate for sports fans can be inappropriate and even disastrous in more intellectually challenging pursuits. Math is not really very comparable to sports, and helping people find and absorb information about mathematical subjects calls for very different organizational principles than writing the sports pages.

For the benefit of latecomers: yes, I started this VfD, and yes, I did change my vote (see discussion below). Originally I wrote: Delete or else expand the biography to explain or at least describe a notable theorem or whatever. In lieu of that, Marusic has no preprints listed on the arXiv and I've certainly never seen any papers by him, hence my nomination. More discussion on the article's talk page. And I am sorry that I didn't follow this VfD process quite right on my first attempt.---CH (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC).

Looks like this article will survive, but it should be rewritten by someone who actually knows M's work, or at least knows algebraic graph theory. I don't really want to take the time myself, but it seems that while I doubt there can be very many Slovenian mathematicians in the world, some of them happen to be Wikipedians (and might even have written or contributed to this article), so I urge them to dig up some papers by M, bone up, and add to the article an explanation of the substance of at least one clearly interesting and important result of Marusic.

Again, my bottom line is that I think that every mathematical biography should include a description of at least one clearly notable mathematical achievement of the subject. Let's drop the silly sports analogy at this point because it is clearly not serving our purposes here. We want Wikipedia to be a valuable encyclopedia for a wide audience. Those who come here searching for sports statistics may well have a legitimate need for articles on every major league baseball player from the beginning of time. That all inclusive umbrella might be appropriate in the sports pages, but it is not appropriate in the math pages, whose readers consist of students who need to get good information quickly about a subject which is inherently difficult, confusing, and daunting to newbies. We can't drive them away by allowing unlimited cruft in the math pages. Rather, we must above all guide them to good information which is genuinely useful to them. Among many other things, this means good categorization, which in turn means: no cruft. Cruft must be strongly discouraged in the math pages.---CH (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 01:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Someone's going to have to give a better reason than "he's a professor". --Chan-Ho 18:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. After all the discussion, it seems this individual is particularly influencial in Slovenian mathematics, not necessarily for the depth of his mathematical contributions but his contributions to creating a mathematical infrastructure. His bio should be edited to reflect this. --Chan-Ho 23:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't judge the importance of his mathematical contributions except to comment that he has one publication (with collaborators which include Malnic) in Combinatorica which is probably the most prestigious combinatorics journal. Also, he has the gray graph result (also with Malnic) which Tomo has linked below. I only noted these facts after Tomo's contribution to this discussion. Regardless, since I'm already of mind to "keep", this doesn't change anything for me, but it may for others. --Chan-Ho 03:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article claims he was awarded the Zois Prize, and according to the article on the prize, it is "the premier science prize in Slovenia". Unless either of these claims is wrong, I'd say he is notable enough. Tupsharru 20:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a comment for Tupsharru: I have never heard of the Zois prize, which may or may not be a bad sign, but my point is that when a biography of mathematician M which appears in Wikipedia, and describes no non-mathematical notability to M (as in the case of the Unabomber), this article should explain a significant mathematical accomplishment of the subject. If the author can't do that, he should be able to cite a web page for the Y Prize or whatever which gives the formal Prize Y citation for M. If he can't do that, I feel the article should be deleted as non-notable. Er, hope it's OK for me to interject a comment like this. I cast my vote earlier, see above.---CH (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be the premier science prize in Slovenia. The question is if that makes it notable. Has anyone outside of Slovenia ever heard of it? A Google search indicates to me that the answer is no. I expect that any reasonably accomplished individual from a country like Slovenia would have such a prize. Should we, in effect, lower the standard for these individuals? I'm honestly asking this. --Chan-Ho 00:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain for now, but the citation is at http://www.mszs.si/slo/ministrstvo/nagrade/zois/2002.asp (I think), though I admit that I'd never heard of the Zois prize before. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Jitse, I hereby award you the first Biographical Barnstar for Brain-numbingly Obscure Web Research :-/ Congragulations!

So can someone, maybe Tomo, please translate this citation? Maybe it will convince me to change my own vote, eh? Like I said, if I'm wrong about any of these three being non-notable, please edit the article to explain or at least describe some truly notable accomplishment! ---CH (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Quick translation:

prof. dr. Dragan Marusic - Zois prize for scientific achievements at the field of graphy theory and algebra.

Dragan Marusic, professor at the pedagogical faculity at the University of Ljubljana, is one of the leading slovenian mathematicians, and is also known around the world. His main area of scientific work is algebraic graph theory, where he explores the symmetries of graphs and the workings of finite groups on combinatorical objects. He is the founder of algebraic graph theory and the theory of permutation groups in Slovenia, where he has taught a group of co-workers which is now well known around the world.

The main scientific opus lies with the research into half-transitive graphs and their classification. The sequence of his work on this area reached its apex in the accurate description of transitive permutation groups with their mirrored orbits of length two. This enables the description of orbital graphs of length four and the complete characterisation of the stabilising crossings. This deep and important result got a wide response in the world. Professor Marusic also achieved important results in other areas such as Hamilton paths and cycles in Cayley graphs, and in the research of half-symmetric graphs. He has published his results in 52 original scientific papers in international journals, from this there were 32 articles in the last seven years. His work is often cited by other authors, and he has presented his work at various international mathematical conferences and foreign universities.

prof. Marusic is one of the most visible researchers in the field of finite groups on graphs. His research work is characterised by deepness and a well of ideas, and the findings of totally new methods at solving problems. His results on half-transitive graphs have opened new ways of development on that area. Much of his work presents a lasting contribution to the knowledge of mankind.

(I apologise for any errors or possible mistranslations of mathematical terms (I'm going to FMF this fall). Based on this I'd say keep, but I will not vote.) 193.77.153.149 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks much, 193.77.153.149, whoever you are. This is very helpful, and gives us a much better idea of what this Zois award is all about. The sentence He is the founder of algebraic graph theory and the theory of permutation groups in Slovenia, where he has taught a group of co-workers which is now well known around the world clearly means the Marusic has founded the Slovenian school of algebraic graph theory, meaning that before he came along, this wasn't being taught at the graduate level and research in this subject was not done in Slovenia. I'll take the Zois award committee's word for this, since this claim certainly seems plausible.

From the time I spend trying to promulgate the Joy of Math here and elsewhere, it should be obvious that I take my hat off to anyone who is a successful and accomplished educator, and I acknowledge that far fewer can teach at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level, because to supervise doctoral students of your own you must have enough ideas for yourself as well as for your students. Founding a school of subject X in your native country is a significant accomplishment of which anyone should be proud. However, with all due respect, hundreds of professors could credibly teach graduate students the basics of algebraic graph theory, and there must be dozens of mathematicians who could supervise doctoral students in this field, so I am not sure that (in the baseball analogy), we are really out of the minor leagues yet.

Well-written award citations usually state the most important reason for the award first, and I take this to mean that the Zois award was given to M primarily in recognition of his service to the developoment of mathematical research in Slovenia. At this point, I observe that since this came up, I noticed that the List of Slovenian mathematicians apparently first arose in the Slovenian language Wikipedia, and then someone, mabye 93.77.153.149, translated this list into English and put it here. Now cross-fertilization between the various Wikipedias is obviously a good thing, but I also think that some sensitivity is appropriate to whether a translation of everything which is appropriate/timely/important for the Slovenian language Wikipedia is important for the English language Wikipedia. Going the other way, guessing that say Cricket is not a popular sport in say Finland, translating pages on cricket from the English language encylcopedia into Finnish is probably a waste of time; anyone who can translate English to Finnish should be translating the math content articles :-/ And going the other way, translating any good articles on indubitably interesting Finnish mathematicians (I can think of a few) into English.

32 papers in 5 years could be very impressive output, or not, since it is an apolitical fact that the quality of journals varies very considerably even in English, and it is true that the highest quality work does tend to appear in the major journals in the major mathematical languages (English, French, German, and a few others; the roster is generally agreed upon, although it has changed over time, as you would expect is probably becoming less eurocentric, and I stress that I am not denying that important papers have appeared in more obscure languages like Ukrainian, and that I am not denying the possibility that important papers are appearing right now in some of the many languages which very few "Western" mathematicians read). My point is that it is not clear from this figure along that everyone would agree that M is a truly major player in the international mathematics scene. Again, I am now convinced is a major player in Slovenian mathematics, but I don't think that alone would make him a notable person in the English speaking world.

I happen to have read some of the literature about Hamilton paths and cycles in Cayley graphs a few years back, so I know that Peter J. Cameron is a leading authority on permutation groups in the international mathematics scene who has written a recent survey paper which I happen to have right... (mumble, mumble). Ah-haaaa!!! Here we go, Cameron does cite Marusic's paper on vertix symmetric digraphs, and one other. Ok, 2 out out of 104 papers. OK, at least some of M's papers are internationally known and recognized as significant. What we need now is a recent survey of algebraic graph theory... Hmm... I am not finding one on the arXiv, although we all know that some extremely valuable papers are never listed there, including the one by Cameron I just used. The books I mentioned are too old to take account of any recent work by Marusic.

OK, bottom line; the article should have been written by someone who actually knew enough about M's work to describe his work, and anyone who knows that much would probably know the literature sufficiently well to be able to judge its importance. At this point, I am convinced that Marusic is an active research who has done some good work, so he must be a competent mathematician and a dedicated teacher. I guess I could change my own vote to an abstention or even a weak keep, if that is allowed.---CH (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If the information on the Zois prize is correct, he appears to pass the "average professor" test. -- DS1953 22:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)**
  • Comment: with all due respect, the "average professor" is NOT notable. Recent professorcruft is starting to annoy me. With that said, yes, I'd like to see this expanded and more detailed, but weak keep for now. JDoorjam 23:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:PROF say "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." For my own voting, I assume that college professors fall into a type of bell curve and that the "average" includes the middle part of the bell. You can't really put a percentage on it, but as I apply the test, it would not be limited to the top 2 or 3% of professors nor would it sweep in 49%, but rather somewhere in the middle. I think any professor in any country that receives national recognition, like the Zois prize (whatever that may be) must certainly stand out from the "average professor". Finally, though this is an English language encyclopedia, we need to be careful not to concentrate our coverage in favor of English-speaking areas. -- DS1953 14:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you avoid my question above: if an individual is above average for a Slovenian professor, but is well below average (or at best average) internationally, are we supposed to lower the bar for this individual to be in Wikipedia? --Chan-Ho 16:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your question above. My personal answer would be that I would not knowingly lower the bar to admit a professor whose qualifications are sub par simply because the poor quality of academics in his country makes him notable among his own peers. Obviously all of this is very subjective, however. The fact that a professor from a small country may not have as many English language papers published, or even present as many papers in total, as a comparable level professor at a publish-or-perish American university does not necessarily mean than his contributions are less notable. For my vote, receiving a national prize will generally tip the scales in favor of keeping the individual in a vfd vote. -- DS1953 17:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you assume that average Slovenian professor is automatically "well below" his counterparts from other countries, Chan-Ho? -- Naive cynic 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, stop, let's not go there, because nobody is implying that Slovenians are less capable than other folk. Lots of academics get some kind of award at some point during their careers, so just getting an award by itself doesn't mean much. I think Chan-Ho is just saying that this particular award might refer to a limited pool. I.e. if there are only 100 Slovenian mathematicians, and if (as I guess) this award only goes to Slovenian nationals, then by itself, the fact that M has recieved it might not imply that he's very notable compared to an international award for which the pool would be the tens of thousands of active research mathematicians around the world. See what I mean?

The useful evidence is not the prize citation, but the keywords which led me to look at a review paper by a mathematician who's work I know and admire (and who I know is an internationally known authority), Peter J. Cameron, where I found that PJC does indeed cite the work of Marusic. The award itself probably doesn't mean much at the international level; the citation in Cameron's revivew is much more impressive. What the heck, I'll change my vote to a weak keep.

• Keep. The Zois award page at the site of the Slovenian Ministry of Science and Education calls him "one of the greatest researchers in the world in the field of actions of the finite groups on graphs", and says that "results of his research on the semi-transitive graphs opened new possibilities of development in this field" (or something like that, I don't know Slovenian). -- Naive cynic 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 22:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep professor's who win national level awards. Klonimus 03:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His result with Malnic was a featured headline news in Math World. He is also on

the editorial board of Discrete Mathematics. Tomo 02:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tomo, by now we've spilled a lot of virtual ink, but this VfD would never have been initiated in the first place if the editors of this article had described this result and why it is important! Think about the users browing Category:Algebraic graph theory. They are likely to be math students, and unlikely to be Slovenian or to know personally the subject. So, they are unlikely to find mundane details (where he attended Gymnasium, some decoration which is very unlikely to mean anything to a non-Slovenian user) at all interesting. So grab their attention by describing an intriguing result! So please edit the article to explain this result and its importance in algebraic graph theory. TIA---CH (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenian or Slovene

A page created solely due to an internal dispute concerning the usage of either Slovenian or Slovene (the former is more common) with Eleassar and BT2 being the main protagonists. Non-encyclopedic wiki-internal conflict page. This info can either be covered in about two sentences in just about any article about Slovenians or the Slovenian language. Delete or redirect to Slovenian. Peter ^Isotalo 17:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk 18:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Karmosin is simply wrong. First, although I contributed heavily to the discussion, the main protagonists of the conflict that participated in edit wars were User:XJamRastafire and User:BT2. Second, while this has been a wiki-internal dispute, the topic has frequently been brought up in non-wiki discussions both online and offline. This can be easily demonstrated by the sheer number of texts written on this question by experts (e.g. Edward Gobetz, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Kent State University and founding director of Slovenian Research Center of America and others) and at the same time this also demonstrates that the topic can be covered in two sentences no more easily than any other. I suggest you seeing these links before voting: [20], [21], [22] etc. Also have a look at Talk:Slovenians. --Eleassar my talk 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no relevant encyclopedic POV involved in any of the links. This information belongs in a Manual of Style or just general Slovene info webpages. The rest is just a lot of meta-debate about clever semantics. It doesn't even count as valid dictionary info because almost no one cares. Like one of the links points out: "Both are acceptable. Neither one is wrong. Consistency is always nice." End of story. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless. Maybe this stuff should belong in Wiktionary.  Grue  20:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Slovenian. - ulayiti (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 06:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vlado Kotnik & Lado Kotnik

Not notable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, cvcruft. --Etacar11 01:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Share Bear 10:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deville (Talk) 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asturian cinema

Extremelly obscure subject, possible original research. Google test lists two and eight hits. --Mecanismo | Talk 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep— Not original research. Note that Cine asturianu is an article on the Wiki-site for our Asturian and Leonese Wiki-brethren. My Spanish is poor enough so that I have trouble with even that, much less the Asturian and Leonese article. But it is clear that it is at least locally noteworthy—the article indicates that hall itself dates back to the beginning of the 20th century (well actually the end of the 19th, but clearly not for cinema at the time) and that the festival is a recent invention to help offset the impact of television. I'll add the interwiki link and someone with greater proficiency than mine can make the translation. Williamborg (Bill) 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've edited the Asturian cinema article, pulling some of the material across from the Asturian article, to put its significance into better perspective. After working on it a very small time (my command of Asturian is an extrapolation of a weak understanding of Spanish) I'm convinced that there is an important vein of articles missing in the English Wikipedia, that the cinema is not just a cinema, it is a symbol for successionists, and that deletion would be a serious mistake. One wonders how many other articles I've supported throwing in the trash because I did too little research to understand why someone took the trouble to put up on Wiki. Williamborg (Bill) 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It is ironic that you should mention research. Wikipedia, in English or in any other language, is not a source. For all that we know, ast:Cine asturianu could be a complete fiction. It cites no sources at all. It is not as if we never have hoaxes in the English language Wikipedia, after all. The Nihilartikel episode should be enough of a cautionary table about trusting what other Wikipedias have articles on. Please look outside of Wikipedia for sources. Uncle G 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Appeciate your cautionary comment. The thought did cross my mind. I "googled" Cine asturianu and found 1,360 hits; many appeared consistent with the article. So I felt on moderately safe ground. And I did link to other Wikipedia pages. And further, Google is hardly a primary source (or even a decent secondary source in many cases) so finding it there simply means someone posted it there. Not being proficient in the language, there would be value in having someone assure that this is not complete ficiton. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Lidströmer and STUDIO L2

Louise Lidströmer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Google finds exactly zero nontrivial hits outside of www.lidstromer.com. Prod removed by article creator. —Cryptic 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with Cryptic. Can the article creator identify other references for the impact of various pieces of art referenced in the article? -- Samir धर्म 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as above and there also seems to be some WP:COI involved from this comment. The potential is there for verifiability/notability so I'll change my vote to keep if the required two non-trivial external sources can be found. Demiurge 11:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Giving the article creator the benefit of the doubt, I've undeleted STUDIO L2 (which I speedied twice earlier (once at STUDIO L²) and am listing it here as well. —Cryptic 11:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as above - also agree with Demiurge on conditions for changing my vote to Keep. Perel 11:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in addition to above, links and articles should not be created or posted by someone affiliated with the site. If it is notable, it will eventually be included in Wikipedia. -THB 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have now tried to delete and change as much as possible ASAP, and I hope the changes are satisfactoruy - if I make more mistakes keep me informed, new member.NGL 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Just adding, for those who wonder, that there are a lot of nontrivial facts on the net, though mostly in Swedish. I could though find even in English a lot of info. Just now working on foot notes, that I haven't really learned yet how to do, need some help here.18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)NGL

True, I can find a lot of info in Swedish but unfortunately it might become hard to classify it... Any way to ask for help of Swedish users here? -- dockingman^talk 06:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe the relisting will allow for some Swedish speakers to evaluate this issue. Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am not quite sure what is required here -- I can verify that there are at least half a dozen Swedish-language, nontrivial sources for this artist's existence and several different exhibitions she's had over the last few years. http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_11974843.asp (one of the major Swedish daily papers) is an interview with her about an exhibition, http://www.karlskrona.se/templates/Page____30133.aspx is information about another exhibition, from the official site of the city of Karlskrona, http://www.vidamuseum.com/konstnarer-lidstromer.htm is a page from a pretty important art museum, about her upcoming exhibition there. I am not personally familiar with the artist's name -- I know very little about visual arts -- though I have heard the expression "femmage" (just didn't know who had coined it). Bonadea 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The creator of these pages, Nike George, must be (a) Lidströmer, as that user has only contributed to pages about Lidströmers and L2 - contravenes Wikipedia:Autobiography. DrKiernan 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no i am not writing an autobigraphy, I am just thoroughly interested in art and architechture + technical innivations and I have chosen to complete what is written about Swedish artists, architects and inventors so far, and I will proceed with more entries ASAP - I haven't saved these yet since I'd like present a more complete picture directly. I hope we can reach concensus as soon as possible. Regarding L. Lidströmer she is absolutely a well known artist name, and I think any Swedish speaking user can confirm that after having seen net links in Swedish and paper articles. The artist's museum in the Old town is a little institution. I can add a list of articles to this talk.

Sincerely Dr Nike GeorgeNGL 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC)

2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

View single debate

Does not meet criteria for inclusion per WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup - this article covers a specific division/unit/brigade. If we are going to apply locality as a benchmark as proposed by a previous comment, then what is stopping us from removing NYPD due to its regional importance (ie. in Boston, the NYPD doesn't effect me). This article needs a cleanup, but otherwise it does not warrant deletion. Jackhamm 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Air Training Corps, this is a local group and not appropriete for wiki. meshach 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup- there are other Air Cadet units that have articles; this one has merely been hit by an overzealous editor. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mmmh. This is the second or third ATC unit I've seen listed for deletion; I'm really not sold that any of them are notable at all, and especially not the way this article's presented. Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, local branch with nothing to distiguish itself or provide notability of its own. The listing of people and their ranks smacks of WP:VAIN. Nuttah68 13:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete for reasons stated. Half of article is about uniform, which is common to all ATC units anyway. Emeraude 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per meschach, although I'm not convinced that the individual squadrons couldn't be part of a list somewhere. Carom 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What use is a redirect? Does anyone seriously think that '2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC)' is going to be typed in by a Wikipedia user? Emeraude 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think it's out of the question, and I don't like to assume that I know the interests of all potential users - plus redirects aren't exactly huge consumers of space, and I don't see any reason not to redirect users interested in this particular fomation to the article on the overarching structure.Carom 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, do not redirect. This is an unnotable training squadron, not even an active-duty military unit, of which we have few on Wikipedia. Fails WP:ORG utterly. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment for information of non-UK readers: No, it's not a training squadron and there is no way it can be an active-duty military unit - it's not a part of the RAF. The ATC is a youth organisation like the Scouts, but centred on the air force. Discussion should be be around whether branches of youth groups such as Scouts, Boys Brigade, Army Cadets etc should have articles and what qualifies or disqualifies each from an article. Emeraude 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is not-notable and unverifiable. Energy put into this article should instead be redirected to Air Cadet Organisation, Combined Cadet Force and / or Air Training Corps who are large enough to be verifiable( I don't get the relationship between them ) Drunken Pirate 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Soundtech

Notability disputed Dweller 11:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have created the article and listed it here for deletion in an attempt to resolve a dispute (here). Given this background, please try as hard as possible to keep this Afd civil. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

*Comment. What's the background? - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, now I've seen the background. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - As an informal, self-appointed, interfering old wannabe mediator, it seems to me that I should not voice an opinion on this Afd. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:CORP — claims to notability are vague (what defines a "leading supplier"? who recognises them?) and originate from the company's own website. Demiurge 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I know I'm all involved in this and stuff, but this is a rather obvious failure of WP:CORP. Danny Lilithborne 13:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear failure of any evidence of importance. Some third party evidence would be needed. - Taxman ^Talk 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Now that I've seen the claims of notability, I'm even more convinced they are not important enough to be covered in an encyclopedia article. Lets get all the Fortune 1000 covered before we write articles on mom and pops. I suggest a 100 million revenue minimum for corps to cover. - Taxman ^Talk 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notability information - Below are various new notability signs about "Alice Soundtech"/"Alice Broadcast". -- 62.147.86.249 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • From the Ofcom (Office of Communications, the UK's communications regulator, formerly Oftel) in a 1996 publication [23], "Competition Issues in Terrestrial Broadcast Transmission": " Chapter 2: market and competition analysis [...] Transmission equipment is increasingly being supplied by a few small specialist companies such as Alice Soundtech, SSVC and SBS, particularly to small independent radio stations with lower power transmission requirements. " [24]
  • In an official application to the Ofcom (in order to get an FM radio license), the would-be director's resume says in section "Ability to maintain proposed service": " He moved to the UK in 1995 and has worked in high profile positions in the broadcast engineering sector ever since. At Alice Soundtech (1995-1998) he developed a good direct knowledge and relationship with many key players in UK broadcasting " (Given in this context, it means Alice is a "high profile position" well-known to the Ofcom people and namedropping them is supposed to be impressive.) (PDF)
  • An independent assessment made by Radiquip (a radio equipment renting company): " Manufactured by Alice Broadcast Solutions the desk has proven popular with hospital radio stations for many years. Whilst its big sister the Alice Air 2000 desk is used extensively by ILR stations, the Series A has proven a popular choice for smaller community based stations, RSL's, and training studios around the world. " [25]
  • From an independent press release of Bryant Broadcast: " Alice appoint Bryant Broadcast as a new distributor (5 Feb 2004) Bryant Broadcast has now become an official distributor for Alice Broadcast Products. In particular we stock a number of the more popular "PAK" boxes, which are widely used in edit suites, studios, etc. to 'mix-and-match' domestic and line level equipment. " [26]
  • From independent reseller CP Sound: " Alice soundtech build problem solving boxes to interface unbalanced to balanced units, splitters and stereo source combiners for every eventuality. [The founder and owner of CP Sound] states that they are a very professional company and would recommmend using them where ever possible. " [27]
  • From the resume of an executive at the UK branch of Radio Computing Services ("the world's leading provider of broadcast software"): " Ben has been at the forefront of technical supply and management in the UK broadcasting industry since 1990 when he joined Alice Soundtech plc, a turnkey broadcast equipment manufacturer and transmission provider. " [28]
  • From the "The Creative Team" (graphic house that made their brochure): " A new brochure for Alice Broadcast Solutions, an established name in broadcasting, brought their extensive range into the 21st century " [29]
  • From their own history page: " Alice was first company to produce 'off the shelf' broadcasting equipment in high volumes. This was a revolutionary concept for the industry " [30]
  • It should be noted that of course, community or hospital radios rarely provide the list of their equipment, thus manufacturers in that branch aren't much visible, even if very present on a market. Thus, it's probably significative that we can still find quite some, such as:
    • From the UNESCO's "Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC; 23rd; New projects" about a "Production of radio programmes for young people on the rights of the child" project, equipment list: " Mixing table (Alice Soundtech A-3 inputs). " (PDF)
    • From "Chippenham Hospital Radio - Engineering - For the geeks among us" infos: " The mixing desk is probably the most important part of the studio - we use an Alice Soundtech Series A desk with 18 channels " [31] and " The old EELA desk [...] The New Alice Soundtech Desk " [32] (so that's the gear they have chosen when upgrading)
    • From "Hospital Radio Tunbridge Wells - Our Technology": " These are all connected together using an Alice Air 2000 mixing desk, which allows the presenter to be in complete control of the equipment. The output of the mixing desk is what the patients hear at their bedside. " [33]
    • From "Portsmouth Hospital Radio - Studio Three": " It houses a broadcast control desk (Alice Soundtech 'A' Series) " [34]
    • From "Ben Gamblin - Broadcasting" infos: " Alice Soundtech Series A Mixer Desk " [35]
    • In an official application to the Ofcom (in order to get an FM radio license), the "Flame FM on Wirral" radio lists its equipment: " Transmitter (Manufacturer) (model) Alice Soundtech GTx20 " (PDF)
    • From The Radio Magazine, in an article where some other company names are followed with an explanation, they are casually mentionned like all readers in this biz already know them: " Forever Broadcasting and Alice Soundtech PLC are backing the Splash FM bid " [36]
    • From the mailing list of the Community Media Association [37], a 2002 thread about "Broadcast equipment needed": " Resonance FM one of the UK pilot access stations is now buying its broadcast studio equipment - anyone selling or with knowledge of where to get quality broadcast desks and equipment secondhand please reply [...] Try Alice Soundtech... not exactly cheap but damn good gear. " [38]
  • I'd add that I also stumbled on various yellow pages and catalogues in German, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, French, Polish, indirectly confirming their claim to be used internationally, such as their saying " a popular choice for smaller community based stations, RSL's, and training studios around the world ".

• Keep - IMO, the official Ofcom document analyzing the UK market and citing 3 main companies including Alice Soundtech would be quite enough for WP:CORP alone, considering the governmental source and the fact that this domain isn't one popularly written about. And I think it's clear they're "an established name in broadcasting" to professionals in the radio business: being very notable inside a given domain is important even when relatively unknown to the main populace. (Full disclosure, I researched the above material. I am however not linked in any way with this company.) -- 62.147.86.249 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment WP:CORP: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" — one passing mention of the company's existence in a lengthy Ofcom report does not in my opinion qualify the company as "the subject of a non-trivial published work". "casually mentionned like all readers in this biz already know them" is a bit of an extrapolation, to put it mildly. Catalogue entries and sales brochures are not admissible under WP:CORP, and mailing lists are inadmissible under WP:RS. Demiurge 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like they make good mixers, boards and other audio equipment, but no articles are presented from, say the audio or broadcasting press to show notability even within one industry. And as for the claim "first company to produce 'off the shelf' broadcasting equipment in high volumes" one might check [39] to see many companies (RCA, Gates Radio, General Electric, Westinghouse, Collins Radio) supplying off the shelf broadcast equipment long before this company was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Edison 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - NN company. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Counter-comments (in answer to Demiurge's comments):
  • For one thing, since the Ofcom report is about a different topic (competition in the radio market), it is telling that some companies of mere hardware get mentionned at all. And for another thing, it's about the weight of the source: when Ofcom says those three companies are the main suppliers of transmission equipment, it provides a great authoritativeness to the information, regardless of the main topic of the document. IMO, this claim in a governmental document, that Alice is one of the main players, shows as much notability as three dedicated puff pieces in industry magazines. It's about the spirit of the notability criterion, not the letter: a non-notable, local company simply doesn't get mentionned as one of the three main players in an Ofcom document, whatever the main topic of said document.
  • Another point about the "Ofcom criterion" would be: would accepting it open a Pandora box of hundreds of small companies being justified too? No: the Ofcom report mentions only three names. And those three companies Ofcom list as main players on this market, why wouldn't they be documented in Wikipedia? How can this market and domain and topic be covered on Wikipedia, if even the top 3 players named by the authoritative Ofcom aren't allowed on Wikipedia?
  • "Catalogue entries and sales brochures" may not be admissible for their content itself (commercial hype), but they can still provide good hints, since we're not just talking about an abstract company but also its products and its sales. For instance, if a company's products can be found all over the world in all catalogues from resellers, then it does provide another sign of notability: a non-notable, local company's products just aren't sold and found everywhere.
  • The other items aren't convincing by themselves, sure, but such accumulation of different sources help show there's something there, at least for casting a reasonable doubt against just immediately killing the article without further investigation. (If there's only a handful of highly specialized industry magazines, for a relatively very small readership, finding dedicated articles online is illusory, it'd require a professional to lookup specialized databases in his library.)
  • -- 62.147.86.249 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• More notability informations
  • Infos from scholar papers (one full article, and plenty of mentions showing it's also quite used in labs):
    • In Broadcast Systems International (Vol. 16, pp. 46-7. Jan. 1990) a whole article entitled "Soundtech Series A mixer" about this product (search result, article content available only in library) -- that's all about one of their key product (Soundtech Series A on Alice's site).
    • In the thesis Features for Audio-Visual Speech Recognition (School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia, September 1998) p.36 mentions: " [The recording] was adjusted for each talker through a Soundtech Series A audio mixing desk and fed to the video recorder. " [40]
    • In the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (Vol.46 1184-1196 October 2003), "The Influence of Phonemic Awareness Development on Acoustic Cue Weighting Strategies in Children's Speech Perception", the scientist mentions: " tokens were recorded onto digital audiotape (Sony, Model DTC-60ES) via microphone (Sony, Model ECM-77B) and amplifier (Alice Soundtech Plc, Model Mic-Amp-Pak 2) and were transferred to computer for analysis " [41]
    • In the thesis Implementation of an Interactive Mathematics Tutor utilising Participatory Design methods (cs.bath.ac.uk, 2005) p.53 mentions: " All sounds for the game were recorded as *.wav audio files through an Alice Soundtech Series A broadcast mixing desk using Cool Edit Pro 2.0. " [42]
  • Infos from business news and books:
    • At Alacra, "The Premium Business Information Source", is sold a booklet of "Company Profiles & Financials" published by Dun & Bradstreet about "ALICE SOUNDTECH LTD" (search result, content is premium) -- I reckon D&B doesn't have a dedicated company profile book about just any UK company, so that would be another sort of WP:CORP publication.
    • At Alacra again, is sold a 1996 document entitled "Headline project for ASC" from Pro Sound News Europe that mentions " [...] fully equipped on-air studios together with Audionics matrix switchers, audio workstations and other equipment from Alice Soundtech. " (search result, content is premium)
    • In the book The Sound Production Handbook (by Don Atkinson, John Overton, Terry Cavagin, 1995), a book "covering basic sound theory and all aspects of sound operations within television and broadcasting", on page 191, "Appendix C: Television organizers and manufacturers", is listed "Alice Soundtech" (search result, content is premium) (book TOC)
  • -- 62.147.86.249 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the references cited in this discussion amount to nothing but passing references-- they are evidence that this is a real corporation, but not eveidence that the corporation is notable. And it appears from the history given that the article itself was created out of a motivation contrary to the spirit of WP:POINT. This article is more of a directory entry than an article that anyone would truly learn from. Developing it further would only turn it into an advertisement. OfficeGirl 21:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some more notability information
  • They operate some transmission sites for Independent Local Radio such as TalkSPORT and Virgin Radio (from the Virgin Group):
    • A large mast in Boston, Lincolnshire: " Boston is an Alice Soundtech site bringing the AM services of TalkSPORT and Virgin Radio to Lincolnshire and North Norfolk. " [43]
    • From 1993 to 2001, the 33 metres mast station in Swindon and others: " The site and equipment was owned by Virgin Radio and operated / maintained by Alice Soundtech. There were 5 sites like this (Swindon, Boston, Gatwick, Lydd and Pirbright (Guildford). " [44]
    • (This website is badly indexed by search engines, so there may be more.)
  • From the UK business directory Internet192: " Alice mixing consoles are the preferred choice of equipment for some 90% of radio stations [in the UK] " [45]
  • From the resume of 3TS Broadcasting's CEO: " Howard previously headed Alice Soundtech PLC (as Managing Director) the UK's largest Radio Broadcast Equipment Manufacturer and Turnkey Radio Studio Solutions company. " [46]
  • -- 62.147.39.76 10:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : the UK broadcast industry should be covered, and a few of its players, even if they're notable only inside this industry, rather than to the mass public. The topic of the UK's Independent Local Radio and Restricted Service Licence links to a few articles about UK local radios or TVs, but has not much background for the hardware industry behind it (mixing consoles and transmitters). The official Ofcom reports provides an authoritative source about which main players can have an article. -- 62.147.39.76 10:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect Tizio 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ipswich ripper

The ipswich ripper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Originally prodded by me with the following concern:
Source quoted (not, by the way, a tabloid) is the only source except for a bulletin board using this term, per Google. It seems The Independent is alone on this so far. This may change, until then this classes as a neologism.
Author removed the prod tag and added several other sources, none of which use the term (the closest, The Times, uses "East Anglia Ripper"). I'm bringing this to AfD as a neologism; if the term gains wider acceptance I'll happily withdraw my nomination Tonywalton  | Talk 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Admin, please Speedy keep; The redirect to 2006 Suffolk murder investigation by WP does the trick. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment please note I am not disputing the deaths, it is the term "Ipswich Ripper" which is not widely used (yet, and may never be: Peter Sutcliffe is known as the "Yorkshire" Ripper, not the "Leeds" Ripper, for example). Tonywalton  | Talk 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

provisional Keep and Rename Perhaps the article could be renamed something other than "The ipswich ripper" - if improved. At the very least, the capitalization is wrong. The subject itself could be made into a good article, but as it stands, it needs work. Aleta 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (modified Aleta 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) )

Changing my vote to Delete given the existence of 2006 Suffolk murder investigation (thanks User:WP for the link). No need to replicate what already exists in a better page. Aleta 10:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment good point. I do have a concern though that this is very much ongoing; something on East Anglia serial killer of 2006 might turn out to be completely erroneous if this turns out not to be a serial killer. This is an encyclopædia, not wikinews (where this series of deaths doesn't seem to appear, as yet). Tonywalton  | Talk 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 22:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is nothing more than reportage of tabloid speculation with no demonstrable proof of linking forensic evidence for the crimes, which, being current events, should be on Wikinews if they are to be reported on any Wiki project. (aeropagitica) 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Looking at Google News, this seems to be a notable offence. He also is called the East Anglia Killer according to the Sunday Times with police investigating three murders in Norwich as well as Ipswich. [47]. The Independent [48] , Scotsman [49] and [50]. This is both verifiable and notable. Article needs improvement especially with sourcing. There is clearly room for articles on current events on Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the current events tag just says things may change rapidly (and not that it should be deleted or moved) supports the idea that c.e. are within the purview of WP. Aleta 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per capitalistroadster. It is a current events but it is being investigated a serial killer and can be delted if they prove to unconnected. Agreed, though, that the title is a bit off and so should be renamed. Keresaspa 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2006 Suffolk murder investigation. Much better article there.WP 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Scottish Gaelic profanity

del wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither it is a guide to slang usage in foreign languages. `'mikkanarxi 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Gaelic profanity without consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, foreign language dictionary excerpts. Pathlessdesert 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I regretted to some extent my decision on this last time after more thought, and the reasons I had last time have been shown since to be worthless. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -- Steve Hart 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW). — CharlotteWebb 01:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volodymyr Bozhyk

Article was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (non-notability), but the notability of the subject is asserted. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from the nom: in view of the discussion below, I suggest a speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as asserter of notability. The fellow seems notable to me, given the criteria - he was music director of a fairly large, well-known ensemble within his genre. The article might stand a little Wikification, but I think it's worth keeping. (Note: I did not write the article, I only contested the speedy). --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. A bit of copy-editing with proper citation would help, but the guy is notable. --Riurik ^(discuss) 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Riurik. —dmytro/s-ko/ 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Thousands of articles per Google search --KPbIC 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above.--Kuban Cossack 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, see WP:MUSIC. --Yakudza 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Odessaukrain 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletions. -- Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is clearly notable within Ukrainian culture. Many ghits as well. --SunStar Net^talk 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, not only notable within Ukrainian culture but also in music history Alf photoman 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alf photoman --Xiahou 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 03:22 Z
• Keep —Bandurist Z. 2006-12-12 03:22 Z

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