Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 27

< September 26	September 28 >

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Iraq War opinion on Saddam Hussein

I normally try to extend a presumption of good faith as far as possible, but in this case it is impossible. The topic has been narrowed only to opinion on an execrable individual, and only to such a time frame as to eliminate any comments to the effect that, bad as he was, the results of the war were worse. Anti-war figures are quoted only for their qualifying statements agreeing that Saddam is awful. There are no quotations at all from anyone in the Reagan administration in the 1980s when they were more or less allied with Saddam. There is not a single quotation from anyone who is an Arab, a Muslim, or even a citizen of any other country than the United States. There is not a single quotation even about how Saddam might stack up against, say, the leaders of adjoining Saudi Arabia; not a single quotation that deals with a single positive of his regime. We do not handle even Hitler or Stalin this way.

The article is little more than a collection of quotations. It is possible that there is material here that might be appropriately usable in some broader context. I would be open to suggestions for something short of outright deletion, but (1) I do not believe the particular scope implied by the title of this article is appropriate and (2) I believe that the person who has so far written almost the entire article has narrowed it even beyond this scope in a way that creates an even stronger bias. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add all the statements you can find supporting Saddam Hussein's good will (and harmlessness) from prominent opinion leaders and public officials in the United States. It can't be too hard. If you want, just send me the links and I'll do the grunt work of adding them myself -- just make sure they're prominent public officials or prominent in the media. Why would you opt to destroy information (in an article several days old and still expanding and being refined) rather than help make an article better? I specifically separated the idea of trusting Saddam Hussein from being pro- or anti-Iraq war in the first two sections of this article. Also, see the Ted Kennedy section. I didn't create this to be an overall "Iraq War debate" article -- I wanted to focus on what important opinion leaders and public officials thought about whether Saddam was dangerous. Did you in fact read this article?Noroton 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

More thoughts: The "Bush lied, people died" position has been shouted for some time. One (not the only one) reason why this article is useful is that it provides a fair account of what people beyond the Bush administration actually said about the danger from Saddam's regime. There was a consensus that it was dangerous. So if someone wants to argue that Bush lied, more needs to be proven. I have no problem at all with including even earlier, Pre-Gulf War statements from the Reagan administration. Why do you want to destroy the article rather than add to it?

Also, I've included Republican comments, including one from Trent Lott opposing the '98 strikes. Another useful feature of this article is that it could show politicians changing their tune as the president changes from Democrat to Republican. And that applies to both some Democrats and some Republicans (and doesn't apply to others. Why can't you give me a few more days to develop the article, which I've already said is (a) a work in progress and (b) something I'd welcome help with? Again, why do you want to destroy the article rather than help improve it?Noroton 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if the article stays the same. Not only is there serious POV issues, mentioned by the nom, but how is this article of any value to what the related articles have? Arbusto 01:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete With an unencyclopedic title like that, this is always going to be either an indiscriminate collection of information or a POV essay. Wikipedia (including this AfD discussion) is not a soapbox. An encyclopedia is not the place for this. Some of this information may be appropriate for wikiquote though. --IslaySolomon 02:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I foresee major problems with this article. Also as a casual Wikipedian I don't particularly care what the US thinks or thought of Saddam, which is what the article is about. Wikipedia articles are usually at their best when they represent a global perspective. Otherwise they normally suck balls.UberCryxic 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm assuming good faith in Norton.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Delete if the article is not massively overhauled. I feel that the article as it stands now is intended to push a particular point of view, but what is here is not completely irredeemable. A great deal of work must be done on a number of fronts.
  • First, instead of focuses entirely on the U.S., it must focus on global opinion as a whole, notably including Europe, Asia, and the Muslim world. In an ideal article, the U.S. might have more opinions cited in the article than any other one country, but the country would occupy only a minority of the text on the page. This means that many of the American quotes will need to be stripped out (or else we will end up with a 200kb article).
  • Second, the article is fraught with sentences that make it clear that its author is trying to convince readers of a point that he can't explicitly state without violating NPOV. The whole gist of the present article is "Democrats used to admit Saddam was dangerous, but because they are filled with blind hatred for Bush they betrayed their convictions to oppose the war." There is no other reason for statements like "Supporters of the Iraq War have noted the statements numerous Democrats and others that emphasized the danger of Saddam and WMDs in the past while the people or institutions who made those statements later opposed the Iraq War" and for the bulk of the text being quotations that all just happen to come from members of one particular political party in one country.
  • And then there's the lead that goes out of its way to say "Democrats and liberals knew Saddam was dangerous. Republicans and conservatives too." The article structure itself makes the same distinction, dividing statements into those made by Republicans/conservatives and those by Democrats/liberals. Why break it down along party lines like that unless you're pushing a point? In fact, why mention the opinions of elected officials and journalists at all, when the relevant opinions on the matter all come from people in the intelligence community (and related fields like diplomacy)? It is entirely on the findings of these agencies, after all, that the politicians and media figures base their statements. The only reason to quote them and not their own sources is to try and score points against them. Andrew Levine 03:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • I just noticed another howler, right in the opening sentence: "...[O]pinion on Saddam Hussein in the United States had developed into a consensus (not without dissent from a minority) that Saddam's regime was dangerous," and the word "minority" links to Protests against the Iraq War! In other words, the article is saying that those who opposed or protested the war believed Saddam to be harmless. Does the author really believe that this fairly or accurately refects the reasoning of the war's early critics? This is one of the clearest indications that he is trying to sneak a political agenda onto Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 03:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom, major POV issues. 24.192.64.200 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment registered users please! Stubbleboy 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted..." Yomangani^talk 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Responding to Andrew Levine: 1. I've started to include Republican comments on both the '98 U.S. strikes against Iraq during the Clinton administration and how those views sometimes contrast and sometimes don't contrast with their views during the Bush administration. None of that fits your characterization. And I have specifically stated that people could oppose the war for other reasons. 2. the article does focus on opinion in the U.S., which should be reflected in the article name. (I've said before that I had trouble with the article name.) It gets broken down along party lines in organization because that's a clear way of organizing it and to make the point that a consensus existed. Levine, you didn't really read to the end of the article, did you? Another point: the relevant opinions are the opinions of the decision-makers, and ultimately of the people who affect public opinion, especially in the United States.Noroton 03:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speaking of howlers Andrew is shocked, shocked that a political agenda might be sneaked into Wikipedia. Take a look at the Iraq War category pages (links at the bottom of the article in question here) and see the shape of Wikipedia's coverage of the controversy: tons of information on opposition to the war, tons and tons of it. If Andrew is saying that the article lacks information, it can be added. I get the impression from the comments here that the real objection is that certain facts should not be noted in Wikipedia and rather than make the information readily available to readers, information should be suppressed because it makes some people uncomfortable. Reasons for opposing the war despite thinking Saddam was dangerous can be added. People who thought back then that Saddam was not dangerous can be added, but none of that disproves that the consensus was that he was dangerous. Why that fact should be controversial or politically biased is beyond me. Why people are more interested in suppressing information rather than dealing with it is beyond me. But it can't be that people here are trying to sneak a political agenda into Wikipedia, Heavens no! Again, check out the articles in the several categories linked to at the bottom of the article in question here. It's quite a statement about politics in Wikipedia.Noroton 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are admiting you wrote this article with a political intent? Arbusto 05:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Arbusto No, I'm admiting that I wrote an article reporting an area of consensus (about the danger from Saddam's WMDs) which was later part of a larger political controversy (on whether or not to go to war with Iraq). Do you think it's possible to fairly do an article on that (reporting on what the consensus was)? Do you think we should have articles on such subjects? What specific ways could I have been more fair in doing it? Are you admitting that you object to it because you think it hurts a particular side of a controversy simply to get the facts out? None of these are rhetorical questions. I realize a lot of the problem here (not all of it) stems from the title of the article. What if it were "American pre-Iraq War consensus on whether Iraq was dangerous" -- what would such an article look like to be fair, or should such an article exist at all? Again, it's not a rhetorical question -- I'd really like to know what you think.Noroton 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Noroton, the solution to a problem of too much bias, as with water in a washcloth, is to squeeze hard until it is drained out. The solution is not to add milk. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as this he-said, she-said litany is more oppo research than encyclopedia fodder. If it were given a better scope it could be the kernel of a United States-Iraqi relations, heading the category. As it is, though, it's not just obvious POV-pushing -- no matter how you "balance" it, all it's about is POV. The important parts of this history are not the various statements (made in context of their times, but taken out), but the actual concrete things that happened. Sorry, this just seems like a fishing expedition, or in service of those who go on them. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Dhartung: you say all its about is POV but it's about other people's POV -- the POV of the people I'm quoting, and they're from all parts of the political spectrum except the far left and the far right because it's an article about what the consensus was. What the consensus was is a FACT, not an opinion, and I'm reporting it, not editorializing in support or opposition to it. I guess the overarching problem that I'm seeing here is that you people don't want an encyclopedia article that (no matter how fairly or accurately it's presented) covers what a consensus opinion was about an important issue. When you say "all it's about is POV" you really mean, "all it's about is reporting on a POV" (although I dispute that, it's all about what the consensus was and in some cases how that changed among both Republicans and Democrats). Is that a fair description of your ultimate objection? Because with all the complaining about NPOV, I don't see what could either be added or taken out to satisfy you. It's the concept of doing an article on this subject that you really object to, right?Noroton 16:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Indeed, Noroton, it is the concept itself that I object to. It's a history of points of view. I don't find that useful or encyclopedic. It's like the difference between who signs a get-well card, and who spends all the time in the hospital with you. --Dhartung | Talk 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply -- Dhartung: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think it would be hard to have any kind of article about history without including points of view, and it's hard to have any deep coverage of something important without separating parts of it into individual articles, so I don't see how Wikipedia could operate well under the restrictions you'd set for it.Noroton 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Noroton, I did indeed read the entire article. But while I was reading more and more of it, the faith I had that you were attempting to be neutral disappeared. The simple facts are these: Your article presents quotes in a way that is deliberately meant to demonstrate a contradiction between what certain people have said and done, and imply that those making the statements changed their stated positions out of political expediency. This is what you admitted above. To that end, you have almost completely ignored the context in which the statements were made. You chose to present the information in a structure that was broken down by party lines and not a chronological structure that would allow the statements to be viewed in the context of the Iraq disarmament crisis and the War on Terror that formed their backdrop. Thus your article ignores the fact that the execution of Operation Desert Fox, by degrading Saddam's WMD projects, rendered moot (or at least cast in a different light) all of the pre-December-1998 quotes, and with it ended the consensus that Saddam still posed a danger. Your article also ignores how the presentation of intelligence by the Bush administration was the primary influence on the opinions of politicians in the year preceding the invasion of Iraq. You left out global opinion on Saddam Hussein, even you have not provided a reason why the article should focus solely on the United States. If these cannot all be addressed, what we have left is an article that presents information deceptively, and we cannot keep such an article on Wikipedia. And yes, as Dhartung says, if you think that some articles have an anti-war bias, you remove the bias instead of adding counter-bias. Andrew Levine 06:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Andrew: (Please see my comments to Dhartung, above, I'd be interested in what you think about them.) You claim to have read the article, but I don't see it. First, I've added (and was in the process of continuing to add) context and direct links to full sources for as many of these quotes as I can get. I deliberately put information about Operation Desert Fox in the article to show that some of the comments were made before and during that episode, and each statement is dated so that anyone can see that. I have also reported that some people have made the political point that these statements seem to contradict later statements. What you say about Operation Desert Fox is interesting and wrong. I DID put in that context. People thought (see Clinton comments in this article and see Albright comments in the "Degrade..." section of the Wikipedia article on Operation Desert Fox) that Operation Desert Fox had delayed Hussein's WMD program and destroyed some material and production capacity, but no one claimed at the time that it destroyed it. Some people said it delayed WMD production for six months (Kissinger, Brzezinski), some said four years. Besides that, some of the statements, as I said in the article, but which you ignore here, were made well after Operation Desert Fox. This is all in the article you say you read (I did add to it yesterday, perhaps you didn't catch the additions?). Second, I did leave out global opinion -- it didn't affect the American consensus, and global opinion would belong in its own article, I think. It was America that decided to go to war and that was decisive. Frankly, global opinion held us back for a while, but ultimately it was irrelevant because we went to war anyway. Figuring out what the "global consensus" was is not something I can do, and I'm not sure how valuable it is. Figuring out what the American consensus was is obviously valuable as background for understanding the decision to go to war. And how do you show there was a consensus unless by showing that the major players across the political spectrum, identified by party, for instance, were essentially of one mind on the subject (which was PART of the overall debate on the Iraq War). I suppose you can quote others saying "there was a consensus" and that probably should be done, but you've got to at least provide plenty of examples of it. Only by having articles about part of that massive debate can we adequately cover, in enough detail, what the overall debate really was. Or do you take the position that we can't have articles covering debates, no matter how important they are? By the way, it's not that I think the articles have the bias, it's that I think the articles themselves are focused on aspects of the controversy over Iraq that are designed to put the anti-war side in a good light, ignoring other aspects, which I think is the reverse side of what your real objection is about this article.Noroton 16:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment post script: I have absolutely no problem including quotes from people like Jay Rockefeller saying why they opposed the war despite having thought when they first voted to authorize it that Saddam was a threat, and even blaming Bush's presentation of intelligence. The value would be that it informs everyone what the position of someone like Rockefeller's was and why it changed. There were plenty of people who recognized some degree of danger from Saddam but who opposed the war nevertheless. I have no problem with including that information as a section in this article and even contributing to an article solely on that position, because I think it would be a valuable contribution to anyone trying to understand the debate. My motive here really is to help readers better understand the debate which this article is one step in doing.Noroton 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment p.p.s.: By the way Andrew, if I were so partisan in wanting to hurt Democrats, why would I be including Republican comments like Trent Lott's, and why would I treat Ted Kennedy the way I did, adding his statement in opposition to the war despite his view of Saddam trying to get WMDs? And why would I keep replacing links from bloggers who were making a political point with Web pages that reproduce entire statements, giving context? And why would I constantly link to the Snopes.com Web page that gives context? Could it be that I'm actually, honestly trying to get at the unpartisan truth instead of trying to make a partisan point?Noroton 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your continued efforts to improve the article show a good-faith effort to remove POV, but I am still afraid that this needs to be completely restructured to avoid even the perception. By the way, I think it is equally unfair to treat Trent Lott the same way. --Andrew Levine 18:16, 27 September 2006

Since the above comment, nobody has reworked the article to make it any less POV. I don't think Noroton is interested in doing what is necessary to make this article unbiased in its nature. Andrew Levine 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, POV issues, it's unlikely the article can become encyclopedic. This chunk of content should be moved out of Wikipedia. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the POV is so bad it's almost painful. Moreschi 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename and Cleanup, while there are obvious POV issues as described above, this is really no different than articles like Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq and American government position on invasion of Iraq. I would rename this something along the lines of Americans' perceptions of Saddam Hussein regime pre-Iraq War or Americans' pre-Iraq War opinion on Saddam Hussein regime. This is a useful body of knowledge to have, especially in light of everything that has come out since. It is well researched, although there were many American voices of dissent that must be included as well.Joshdboz 11:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is, as I noted on the article's Talk page, a fairly transparent attempt to push a point of view.
  • Comment: I was going to post this on the article's Talk page, but since it seems most discussion is occurring here, I'll put it here.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. And use of the word "repair" was unnecessary. I should have just said "work". I apologize for being rude. But this is a thoroughly biased article.

Have you read WP:AGF? The policy in a nutshell is: "Assume that others are trying to help Wikipedia rather than harm it, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary." I don't think you created this article with malicious intent. I have not assumed bad faith. I've no doubt you mean well. I certainly have never said that you were attempting to harm Wikipedia. I apologize if I haven't said this nicely enough, but what I am saying is that on a fundamental level this article does not meet WP:NPOV. It also fails a few other requirements for quality articles.

To begin with: In its first sentence, [[Pre-Iraq War opinion on Saddam Hussein]] narrows its scope to only one topic: American opinions on Saddam Hussein relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which if nothing else is an instance of ethnocentrism. Later we learn that even that isn't really the article's scope: It's actually just a collection of quotations from U.S. politicians and a pair of U.S. newspapers.

This article is fraught with bias and misconceptions. Returning to the first sentence: "Pre-Iraq War opinion on Saddam Hussein in the United States had developed into a consensus (not without dissent from a minority) that Saddam's regime was dangerous to the United States and the world."

• The "and the world" bit is hopelessly vague. The primary object of Saddam's aggression was Iran, followed distantly by Israel, which he and many others in the Middle East regard as an interloper on Arab land, and more distantly by Kuwait in 1991, when he invaded because he regarded Kuwait as a thorn in his side and he believed he could get away with invading.
• "Consensus" connotes an agreement reached after a meeting, rather than a widespread misconception.
• The "minority" mentioned is at best inaccurate, since the protests against the invasion of Iraq were protesting the invasion of Iraq for a wide variety of reasons, not necessarily arguing that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. or "the world". Many of them argued that, actually, Iraq posed no significant threat, or even that what Iraq posed a threat to was Iran, which actually is the country that most of Iraq's military aggression was directed towards.

Perhaps it was rude of me to conclude from the article's obvious bias that the article's sole contributor's political proclivities were showing in the way that it was written. If so, I am sorry, but that is the way it appears to me.

Another relevant part of WP:AGF is as follows: "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that actions should not be needlessly attributed to malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of failing to assuming good faith can, itself, be a form of failing to assume good faith." --Mr. Billion 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment---Mr. Billion:Thanks for toning it down and thanks for the thoughtfulness of your comments both here and on the talk page. I think I overreacted too and replied too harshly, and for that I apologize.

Part of the problem here is certainly mine: My conception of what the article is about was too hazy when I started it and this debate is helping me clarify it. Because I was so hazy, it led to misunderstandings about my intent, which was to report on what other people's opinions were and how that formed a pre-war consensus on ONE aspect of the overall issue of Iraq: whether Saddam was dangerous. That doesn't end the debate on the war and in fact it was a consensus that existed independently for several years before the idea of going to war was debated. I think the subject I've described is valuable enough for a fair article in itself, do you? I think the subject here should be covered and covered with roughly the same scope in one article, but that other articles on related subjects would better put it in context. I just wrote several replies to Arbusto, Dhartung and Andrew and I'd be interested in what you think about some of the questions I asked. As to your specific objections:

• Ethnocentrism -- we're a nation state that essentially had its own debate about going to war with another nation state. Therefore limiting this to America is justified, not for ethnocentric reasons but because this country is its own political unit and each political unit makes its own decision (so we have histories of Massachusetts in colonial times, for instance, and histories of Virginia, and having those histories is not parochial in any wrong way). Did the opinions expressed in other countries have an affect on our debate to go to war? Even if they did, what's relevant is what my article is about, which was what our opinions in this country were about the danger of Saddam's regime. Opinions elsewhere, particularly England, France, the Arab world, could make valuable articles as well and I'd read or even contribute to them.
• "Consensus" -- interesting point. I think there were various meetings, though. I prefer that word (it's concise for one thing and probably useful for a title) but I have no problem with prominently discussing what widespread misconceptions there were. For instance, it appears that Operation Desert Fox was more successful than even the Clinton Administration believed. This wasn't discovered until after the war was over. Desert Fox appears to have actually knocked out the WMD programs right up to the invasion. I think some discussion of what was misperceived would be useful in the article, with a link elsewhere for the fuller discussion.
• "minority" I think you're right, and putting that link in was a bad mistake on my part. I'll take it out. I also think it's worth mentioning who was in that minority and why they thought that way.Noroton 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• "and the world" the threat was vague and I would be amazed to see you back up your points about Saddam's threat being almost entirely a concern of Iran and Israel. I think you're way out on a limb there. In any event, in reporting on what the American widespread belief was, it was that Saddam posed some danger to us (I think I've certainly shown that was the belief) and we also believed he was a general danger to anyone he could lob a missile at or wherever he could sneak in a terrorist with a WMD.Noroton 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Prepare to be amazed, then. As the Iraq Survey Group noted: Saddam didn't have any WMD but he wanted them. As to why he wanted WMD, they observed: "Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary." As Brent Scowcroft, National Security advisor to George H.W. Bush observed in August 2002: "Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs."

As to whether it was known before the invasion that Desert Fox had degraded Iraq's WMD capability, refer to the Snopes.com article from which you collected many of these quotes: Afterwards, the military "announced the action had been successful in 'degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice noted in 2001 that "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Colin Powell said the same month that Iraq "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." It is misleading to say that the whole world was unaware that Saddam no longer had any significant WMD.

Regardless, this article's content (just a collection of quotes) is more suitable to Wikiquote, although again, proper context is essential. That and the palpable bias in its creation that JMabel and others have noted is why my vote is still Delete. My perception (just an impression I get) is that the changes Noroton has made are efforts to save "his" article rather than actual efforts to reach neutrality. He believes that his opinions in this discussion are "the voice of sweet reason amidst the howling storm," which indicates a continuing view that he is right and everybody else is wrong. --Mr. Billion 20:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Mr.Billions:What amazes me is how you insist the limb isn't already cracking: The Iraq Survey Group was formed AFTER the war. We are talking about before the war. Brent Scowcroft is certainly someone to be listened to as a person who once had considerable responsibility, but he is hardly the last word, had no inside information on Iraq's capabilities at that time (to my knowledge, anyway), and would have been relying on educated guesswork. I don't think Scowcroft presented (or had) any evidence at the time for that statement. I'd be happy to include his thoughts on the subject as the minority view, however. The assassination plot against George H.W. Bush doesn't appear to fit in with your Scowcroft statement.

As to whether Operation Desert Fox degraded Iraq's WMD capabilities, the consensus was that it certainly did. The consensus, even from official government spokesmen at the time, was that the degrading was not permanent. There were varying estimates as to when Hussein could eventually get WMDs built. Just see Clinton's comments in the article. See Albright's comments in the Operation Desert Fox article (I put them there). As I said, ONLY AFTERWARD did we realize how effective Operation Desert Fox was -- the Iraqis seem to have given up after that. Feel free to include those quotes from Rice and Powell in the article, and please explain why they fly in the face of everything said by everybody quoted the next year, in 2002. Could it be because Iraq continued to play games with inspections and because, after 9/11, the U.S. became concerned about nonconventional delivery of WMDs via terrorists?

As your comments show, the subject itself is interesting -- you just don't like the information I have put in the article. Rather than censor, you should be helping, or at least supporting others, in putting all of this into a coherent whole, as I keep suggesting. I have no problem taking this subject wherever the facts lead. Do you? I've also demonstrated on this page that I can change my conclusions instead of stubbornly holding on to a position unless I feel it's correct. Now that hardly seems like I'm impervious to other people's opinions, does it? (and don't take edit summaries so seriously)Noroton 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem so easily offended by other people speculating as to your own motivations, it would behoove you to refrain from accusing others of bad-faith motivations. I'm somewhat offended at your claim that I "just don't like the information [you] have put in the article", and that I'm only seeking to "censor" it. You might yourself review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. What I dislike, and what several other people on this page have said they also dislike, is the brazen bias inherent in the way you created this article.

The Iraqi obsession with Iran was well-known before the Iraq Survey Group was established. The fact that Iran was by far Iraq's primary target was already well known to the United States military. Regardless, even if they somehow had no idea of this, it would be irrelevant to the current discussion. I was replying to your claim that it was impossible to support the observation that Iraq posed a danger primarily to Iran. You said "I would be amazed to see you back up your points about Saddam's threat being almost entirely a concern of Iran and Israel," and that I was "way out on a limb there." I presented evidence in support of my statement, and you changed the subject to when the United States became aware of Iraq's military goals. That is a red herring.

I haven't seen anywhere on this page where you've changed your conclusions. Presented with evidence of the fairly obvious fact that Iraq's goals were traditional and regional, you attack General Scowcroft's credibility without any evidence of your own. When it was first observed that the article is thoroughly biased, you attacked me for not being nice enough and allegedly breaking WP:AGF.

General Scowcroft was well aware of the attempt on George H.W. Bush in Kuwait in 1993. The U.S. had already tried to assassinate Saddam 260 times in 1991. And as Scowcroft said, if the incompetent 1993 attempt were any sort of justification for invading Iraq, why didn't we do so in 1993? It is at best an excuse. Even after 1993 George H.W. Bush himself did not advocate invading, and in fact still remained strong in his insistence that it was right not to invade in 1991. As he wrote in his memoirs, doing so "would have incurred incalculable human and political costs." The 1993 attempt may not be all it's cracked up to be.

By the way, I don't think you can so easily erase from memory things that you've said by merely saying "hey, don't take me so seriously." Even if you're merely joking, insulting people who are part of this discussion is in very poor taste and represents a violation of WP:CIVIL, a policy which I'm aware you are very concerned about. --Mr. Billion 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Mr. Billions You're losing track of what was said. On Iraq's danger beyond Iran, Kuwait and Israel, you seem to want to argue what actual danger existed, whereas I contributed an article about what was thought at the time, so any points you make that go beyond what was known and believed at the time is irrelevant to this particular discussion (although interesting in itself, this is the wrong forum for that debate, which I'd win). You are the one changing the topic, not me. The quotes in the article show that it is a historical fact that there was a widespread belief -- a consensus -- that the Iraqi regime was dangerous to America. Nothing about what Scowcroft says contradicts that historical fact. I do find the Rice and Powell quotes dispositive and much stronger, however, and definitely worth including. I can say that because my mind isn't closed and can accept contrary information. In part, that's what collaboration is about. What I want is to get information out so we can come closer to the truth. I guess that makes me biased.

You insist on taking seriously and personally a flippant, humorous phrase I put into the edit summary. You also characterize my criticism of your rude initial comments, which you appeared apologetic for later on, as an "attack" on you. Why not just stick to the subject?Noroton 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, let's stick to the subject. A majority of voters--A consensus--recognizes that this article is so blatantly biased and misconceived as to not be worth keeping. Making flippant remarks, calling others rude, and insisting that reality is irrelevant in an article on opinion will not help to change that. --Mr. Billion 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And you've done such an admirable job in sticking to the subject: attacking me. When I take your arguments seriously -- and I've been very earnest and serious in answering you, making this discussion very long -- you ignore all of that, focus on off-topic minor points that you think you can condemn me for (and strain to reach for something to condemn), then bring in observations from after the time period we're talking about here. Then you crow about more people voting for your side. I guess I was mistaken in responding to you. I won't make that mistake again here> Last word's yours if you want it.Noroton 21:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't "attacked" you; I have criticized the article and the way it was written, which you seem to have taken unusually personally. The observations about Iraq's motivations, as should be obvious from reading what has already been said, were easily available well before the invasion.

I am disappointed at the way you first say some of your remarks were merely "flippant" and "humorous" and then switch to insisting that they've all been "earnest and serious". This is not helping us. That and the plainly visible tendentiousness in the construction of the article under discussion leads one to wonder about your actual level of earnestness and seriousness.

I'm disappointed that you feel that discussion is not a helpful way of resolving disputes, but if you now wish to shut yourself off from communication, that decision is yours to make. --Mr. Billion 06:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't "attacked" you; I have criticized the article and the way it was written" You're so right. How could I have misinterpreted your cool, calming language as anything other than a reasonable, helpful, fair-minded, collegial effort on your part. Thanks for pitching in!

• ["it will require a large amount of repair... Noroton's pet political project" -- 25 September (from your very first comment, on the [Talk:Pre-Iraq War opinion on Saddam Hussein|Discussion page]])
• So-called "apology" that I guess wasn't really an apology: "I apologize for being rude. ... Perhaps it was rude of me to conclude from the article's obvious bias that the article's sole contributor's political proclivities were showing in the way that it was written. If so, I am sorry, but that is the way it appears to me. -- 17:00, 27 September
• "My perception (just an impression I get) is that the changes Noroton has made are efforts to save 'his' article rather than actual efforts to reach neutrality." -- 20:14, 27 September
• Well, at least I'm not under attack. I'm just "disappointing": "I'm disappointed that you feel that discussion is not a helpful way of resolving disputes" It's just an impression I get, but after all you've said, does that wording ring a little false coming from your keyboard? And do you think this response of mine is meant to be humorous or earnest or both? Oh, that's right, you don't even think someone can alternate between one and the other, never mind be both at once.Noroton 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. You seem to be getting very worked up over this. I am displeased at the attempt to push a point of view (and about a dozen others have also concluded that the creation of this article was such an attempt, so it's not just me) and your subsequent behavior. I don't think someone can legitimately alternate between flippancy and earnestness, then claim to have been consistently earnest. I don't have anything against you personally, but I wish you'd drop the POV-pushing.

It is good that you've chosen to return to the discussion, but the sarcastic and confrontational nature of your return has not helped matters. I don't know why you've taken my statements so personally, but I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings.

As IslaySolomon and others have noted, this content is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This discussion has ceased to be productive. --Mr. Billion 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion long since ceased to be productive. I've shown where the confrontation started and who started it. I leave it to anyone, including yourself, to check the accuracy of your description of your comments and mine -- I don't find your descriptions accurate in the least. There is no sense trying to create an article on a controversial topic when so many Wikipedians are more interested in suppressing information than in trying to improve an article. The standard is that the article has to be perfect at birth or we'll kill it in the crib. Great example of collaboration guys.Noroton 20:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying is inaccurate. Nor is it clear what you mean by "who started it." JMabel was the one who nominated this article for deletion, not me. Several others have had the same criticisms of the article's structure as I have had. Perhaps you're focusing on me because I was the first one to point out the obvious political intent. Regardless, the point is not that Wikipedia doesn't or can't have articles on controversial topics--There is no shortage of those--but that Wikipedia shouldn't accept articles that are clearly intended to push a point of view. Your accusing "so many Wikipedians" of merely seeking to censor your innocent pursuit of truth is insulting. That is itself a very poor attempt at working within a group. We are not blind, and we can recognize partisanship when we see it. Please stop insulting us.

Please. --Mr. Billion 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Noroton, I think that your latest efforts at improving the article present a good-faith effort at removing POV issues. There is a lot that still needs to be done, however, in terms of its structure. I will see if I can work on it a little more over the next few days. In the meantime, I am changing my vote on the article to Neutral and will see if we can reach a common ground. Andrew Levine 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Eight days later, Noroton no longer seems interested in restructuring the article as needed. Andrew Levine 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with Cleanup POV issues is not a valid reason to delete an article. If the problem is POV, we can simply cleanup the article to make it NPOV. Ramsquire 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep assuming Good Faith Valoem ^talk 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete as I feel the article as presented is incapable of conforming to NPOV and reaches too far into the realm of OR (even leaving aside that the title suggests a topic 100 times broader than what it is). I admire the degree of research done here, but I think the author may misunderstand the meta-academic nature of wikipedia. This is not a place where one does research and presents a paper. This is a place to cite a published academic paper if it regards a broader topic.

That said, since the author has obviously done some extensive research, there's no reason for it to be completely lost. I would say that all of the quotations in the article have value to the public debate about Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War, but best practice would be to create a third party site with only those quotations and add a passage or two to related articles here with a citation to that third party site. My OR concern is not about the primary sources, it's about their presentation here 'with findings' in an original way.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one -Markeer 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Markeer: You make good points, but they don't apply to this article. I'm not advancing a thesis that doesn't exist, I'm providing an account of what was said. I think I can find citations of what others have said about the positions people have taken, but Wikipedia (and any encyclopedia) has always used direct quotes, too. There are more here than usual, and writing an article about a debate is something new for me, but this isn't fundamentally different from other articles and doesn't have to be. You don't say why the article is incapbable of conforming to NPOV -- why?Noroton 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete what with Wikipedia not being a soapbox, and this being a polemical essay. Why shouldn't the opinions of all the people who thought Saddam was a great guy in the 1980s be included here ? Ah, carefully chosen parameters. That is why it will always be POV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- Angus: You ignore information included in the article that is contrary to some simple partisan "soapbox" statement. You call "polemical" what reports on polemical statements from people (what article about a controversy wouldn't do that?). You ask the purely rhetorical question "Why shouldn't the opinions of all the people who thought Saddam was a great guy in the 1980s be included here?" because you ignore the top part of the article itself (relying only on the article title, which I'd prefer to change to the boldface version in the top paragraph). Rather than ask a rhetorical question, why not make it a real question? The real answer would be: That doesn't relate to the perceived danger of Hussein to the U.S. and the world, which is the subject of this article. If "the opinions of all the people who thought Saddam was a great guy in the 1980s" aren't in Wikipedia, I think that's a worthy subject for an article or part of an article. If it doesn't exist, I'll be happy to help put it in -- how 'bout it, Angus?
• Strong Keep for all the reasons I've stated above and may later state below, although I think this is a lost cause.Noroton 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Joshdboz and Ramsquire's comments. —Morning star 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It has an axe to grind but that doesn't mean it should be deleted instead of fixed. It's only two weeks old and almost all the edits are from one user. With time we can make it conform to WP:POINT. People won't fix it if it's going to be deleted. - Peregrinefisher 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOT Section 1.5.3. This is... a bunch of quotes. That makes it a violation of the policy against collections of primary source material. Plus, I think there's an original research issue here. If someone else had done a literature review, and an article in the "Academic Journal Of American Opinion" had used all the quotes copied here to do a statistical analysis on "Pre-Iraq War U.S. opinion on Saddam Hussein" (there's a systemic bias issue in the current list, but that's not grounds for deletion), we could use that journal article as a source. The quotes themselves, though, without an intermediary analyst... I think is too far in the direction of original research. The Literate Engineer 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment--The Literate Engineer Well, the first seven footnotes or so link to intermediary analysis, although it's partisan. They could be described more in the article -- would that satisfy you?Noroton 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment No. One, I'm inclide to agree with the part of the WP:RS guideline that says blogs and forum posts should never be accepted as secondary sources. Two, the analysis is of the wrong sort. I offered statistical analysis as an example. A secondary source that used the quotes as the input for calculations that found a 95% confidence interval of 57% to 79% of the U.S. population felt a certain way, that would be fine. An academic journal article that used all or some of those quotes for a case study in how political leaders present themselves in response to or in an attempt to shape public opinion, fine. All of the analysis presented in the first 5 sources, source #9, and source #25 (the 7 I checked, assuming them to be a representative sample) in my opinion either addresses a topic other than the topic of "pre-Iraq War opinion on Saddam Hussein", and is therefore irrelevant for our purposes here, addresses the topic but lacks enough of an academic nature to be a reliable source, or both. They'd be ok as examples backing up a statement like "Bloggers and op-ed columnists have used quotes by some politicians to suggest that they have flip-flopped on the subject of the Iraq War," but that's a different subject. The Literate Engineer 03:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment--The Literate Engineer: You're joining the discussion late and I can't really blame you if you didn't catch my comment somewhere in the ocean of words above that my original title wasn't well thought-out. I suppose I should have changed the title of the article (there's a process to do that while a delete discussion is going on, but I didn't have the patience to figure it out). My preferred title, and the real subject of the article in question is in the boldface words at the top of the article. Therefore public opinion isn't part of the article (and it's addressed in another article anyway). As I said above, it's an article about a political-opinion controversy: that's where the sources are. You either use the sources you have in as fair a way as possible, or decide you don't want to do an article on a particular subject. It seems to me that the subject is important enough to include in Wikipedia. Some contributors to this discussion have said they don't think so. Can the subject be covered fairly at all, or is there something inherent in the subject that makes it impossible to be covered fairly? My thinking is that any subject above some level of importance (however you define it) can and should and even must be covered by a project like Wikipedia. I can't see any way that the subject of whether there was a consensus on the danger of Iraq WMDs is not an important subject. I think it's one important part of the debate about the Iraq war. It's in that overlapping area of political controversy and recent history, and it affects the way people think. This subject is not the only part of the Iraq War debate that's important, but it's one part that is. In all the commentary of this discussion so far, I've seen a lot of emotion, a lot of invective and a lot of complaints, but hardly any grappling with (a) whether or not this is a subject important enough for a Wikipedia article; (b) whether or not it can be covered in Wikipedia fairly; (c) how to do that. The response to the article has been mostly emotional and often childish. Wikipedia seems to have its limits. I'm resigned to seeing my work wiped out and to see nothing but invective (except for a few responses like yours) in response to attempting to do an article about a controversy.Noroton 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete. Irrepairably (sp?) POV. Unlike the title, the article is a collection of arbitrarily arranged selected United States politicians' pre-Iraq War opinions about Sadam Hussein. Thryduulf 23:41, 6 October 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Ethics and US Government Policy

Delete. I don't think that this article could possibly be rewritten in a NPOV. Even with cited sources, this article also seems to be OR. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Is there an essay "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"? Should be, and this is why. Akradecki 01:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow...there actually is...guess I should have looked there! Thanks! Akradecki 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, reads like an essay. VegaDark 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete soap box. Arbusto 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original thought. With a POV-baiting title like that, it will never be anything else. --IslaySolomon 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Stubbleboy 03:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete may be a good sub-section of politics or government, but it is way to POV as it is.Mad$ 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can never conform to WP:NPOV and is a non-encyclopedic topic. --JaimeLesMaths 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a soapbox. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 09:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, essay-like, which makes it original research Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV and "soapbox-ish". bernlin2000 ∞ 15:35, 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 blanked by the original author - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aviva Romm

• Delete. Looks very weird and I don't see how useful this article is. Georgia guy 01:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a perfect example of whar wikipedia is WP:NOT. --Tarret 01:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable anime

WP:LC, WP:NOT. "Notable anime" is nn slang. Dynamic Networks 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Dynamic Networks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Delete. The list is completely subjective and arbitrary, from the sub-categories to the title. --Wafulz 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Subjective and arbitrary per Wafulz. Irongargoyle 03:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Wafulz. JIP | Talk 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Roninbk _{t c #} 08:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Seems half way between listcruft and redundancy. I'm sure this is already covered amongst other anime-related articles. If not, then Merge Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above: completely subjective. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for hopefully obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 08:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks just like the Great anime article that was AfD'ed successfully last month and I also voted to delete. Nate 10:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd imagine it could be made a viable article if the choice was based on some objective criteria, but currently it seems totally POV. Mark Grant 22:23, 1 October 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 wasSpeedy keep - notability is clear in this case, all opinions are keep. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elechi Amadi

not noteworthy or well-known Igbogirl 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Holy Christ Strong Keep Bad nomination dude. This is a very well-respected author. He even has an entry in Britannica. Also, not that it matters much (or at all), but I've heard of him and I have no connection to Nigeria or anything. It would be sad to delete this article. That aside, it does need a good cleanup.UberCryxic 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very noteworthy author with scores of popular and critical reviews. ~ trialsanderrors 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep - Amadi is a major figure in African post-colonialist literature; this is rather like nominating Walt Whitman or David Mamet for deletion. -- MarcoTolo 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - anyone in "Who's Who of Twentieth Century Novelists" gets my vote. Eldereft 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand! Hopefully we can get rid of those red links. Stubbleboy 03:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note I also don't quite understand why someone with a username with Igbogirl would be nominating such an article for deletion. Does your name have any significance with the Igbo people?? Stubbleboy 03:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely! Perhaps the nomination was a personal thing? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep - we need more like this to counter systematic bias. -- Beardo 03:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, well known author, it's very obvious that he is notable, no doubt. Do some googling for goodness sake, if Britannica has it, all the more Wikipedia should have it. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 09:26, 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 of this debate was keep. Stubbleboy 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baz Bamigboye

person is not noteworthy, few people have heard of him or care about him Igbogirl 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do we have guidelines on notability for "journalists" ? If we have an article on Nigel "Pratt" Dumpster why not poor Baz ? -- Beardo 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Google turns up some articles and some carping, but no major controversy or Pulitzer nomination or suchlike. Eldereft 02:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per Eldereft. Google does have some hits, but most pertain to articles he's written and dead-links. Stubbleboy 03:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. I have struck my consensus of delete per my belief that this article was nominated solely in retaliation, evidence from contributions by Igbogirl (talk • contribs). The article is in need of cleaning up which I shall tag it appropriatly. Stubbleboy 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (but expand). Should the bar to entry really be set so high that only "Pulitzer nominated" or very controversial journalists/columnists are included? Surely a prominent and long-running column in a highly notable national newspaper is enough. And that is without even considering Baz's significance to Nigerians, given that the article implies his father is a Nigerian king. AdorableRuffian 09:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article as it stands is dreadful, but Bamigboye is actually a pretty well known journalist in the UK. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG Keep This article isn't that good, but it is hard to imagine why he is not on here already. For such a famous journalist to be called "not noteworthy" is bizarre. Is it really constructive to suggest that "few people care about him" ? I am certain that Mr Bamigboye has a loving family, a caring group of friends, and he certainly had a caring readership. He is a journalist for the United Kingdom's most read newspaper. --Jamesr84 11:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't want to go all WP:POKEMON on you, but he has been around for years. The article could do with improving, though. Mr Stephen 11:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precious Williams and in particular see this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precious_Williams&diff=77986903&oldid=77981995 -- Beardo 12:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Jamesr84. "NN" isn't enough of a reason for me on this one; I see no vanity or anything like that here. In addition, I wonder about the nominator's motives given that (s)he also AFDed the speedily kept article above—I wonder if this is the case of someone trying to punish writers for taking the wrong side. Alternatively, it could be retaliatory, as Beardo notes.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Writes for the daily mail and has made more TV appearances than most of the reality show contestants that we've kept articles about. ergot 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, notability not asserted. Being a gossip columnist is certainly not sufficient notability. Person may be notable for other reasons but there's no evidence of this. --Yamla 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete I agree with Eldereft. I don't see any notability at all. Are we going to list every gossip columnist for every single newspaper in the world? Also, his claim of being the son of a Nigerian king has never been confirmed. Igbogirl 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Note that this person is the AfD nominator. --Yamla 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The paper in question is the second highest selling daily in the UK. Are you suggesting that only American journalists can be kept? Piccadilly 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Where do I start? 61,000 ghits should be enough for most people. obviously some will be his by-line, but a he's been on TV on Have I got news for you and gets quoted all over the place. "few people have heard of him or care about him" is absolutely not a useful reason for AfD nomination. I had not head of many people until I browsed wikipedia, but that does not prevent their being notable. Please also note Stubbleboy's comment above. Fiddle Faddle 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (but expand). The article definitely needs some re-writing, but Baz is well-known PR fixture in the UK. -- Jalabi99 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very famous columnist for the second highest selling daily in the UK. Piccadilly 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Piccadilly. Itsmejudith 14:49, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Pantheon

The content of the article appears to be entirely OR, as if the editor simply tossed in any divine, angelic, or demonic name he could think of without reference to whether the beings in question are even part of Christian belief, or can be referenced as such, or is designated by any reliable source as part of a "Christian pantheon". The definition of the article title appears to be extremely nebulous to judge from the Google results. Its meaning appears to vary depending on context, so an NPOV version of this article will likely be impossible to achieve. It's certainly not itself a Christian term. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. This is a key example of why articles need references and original research has no place here. It all seems like quite reasonable a list at first glance unless you actually know anything about the subject and you see that some names refer to the same mythological characters. The rest are arbitrary and quite a few seem to be made up. Irongargoyle 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I clicked on one I didn't recognize and it turned out to be a fictional character from a fantasy series. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Googling the term seems to bring up some existence of the term being used. An article for that term might be able to exist. But there is no definite source for a list of beings in this so-called pantheon. And as mentioned above, there are many listed here that don't belong in a Christian context (e.g. Allah being under the demon category). —Mitaphane _talk 04:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 04:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd call it list cruft, but it isn't formatted properly. It appears this is a collection of Christianity-related words, which is really not for Wikipedia at all. Maybe better as a category. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete LOL This is not an article. Valoem ^talk 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's several articles and a number of lists hiding in there but per User:Irongargoyle, this is a hopeless jumble. --69.236.160.1 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are some Christian elements, some mythical, some I believe wholly imaginary. Essentially nonsense.--Anthony.bradbury 18:40, 29 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 El Speedy Keepo Gigante - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bourrie

According to the wikipedia policy regarding notable living persons, I do not believe the individual in question comes close to passing the fairly rigid standards imposed by the policy. For additional information please see Notability People. In particular, he does seem to meet this criteria: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."

Link to Archived discussion of Speedy Delete nomination in July 2006 WasWasWu Sept 26, 2006 9:30 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per first nomination. This is Nom's first edit, which also leads me to beleive sockpuppetry may be involved here. Stubbleboy 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as above. -- Beardo 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep the subject is no less notable than last time. --Michael Johnson 06:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I believe that WP:ArbCom just accepted a case on a very closely related topic. Not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that the timing is interesting. (Note: Am a bit new, so, if this comment is inappropriate, leave a note on my Talk page and I'll fix it.) --JaimeLesMaths 07:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Curcumstances haven't changes since last nomination, which was a clear keep, this subject is as notable as ever. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Where are the "Multiple Independent Reviews" that would justify keeping this article?
  • "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Are we going to follow the Wikipedia policy or not?User:WasWasWu 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If we are going to keep Wikipedia from spiralling out to nothing more than a database of every two-bit author & part time journalist in the world, then these two Alternative tests seem applicable and perhaps need to be more widely employed when assessing Notability:
  • "100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
  • 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?User:WasWasWu 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment don't state delete twice... it is bad wiki-etiquette.--Isotope23 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, nomination of article that surivived an AfD on a keep consensus by a single use account. No credible reason given for deletion.--Isotope23 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I strongly suspect this speedy delete request is just another moment in a very long edit war without end. I'd probably vote for deletion if the motives weren't so suspect. --Nik 15:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S.I.S. Forums

"Small" Non-notable web forum, which unfortunately are a dime a dozen. Wildthing61476 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Google brings about 35,000 results, but these are for quite a few different forums as well as profiles of users on those forums. I can't access the Alexa ranking of this particular forum (slow connection; it comes up as 404 error 95% of the time), but I'm guessing it's quite low. Srose (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't come near WP:WEB, and anything on it would be unverifiable. --Wafulz 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't pass WP:WEB to save its life. 19 members, 64 topics. Even the article admits it's a very small forum. JIP | Talk 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 19:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Could go Either Way I am a member of the forum, it actually had 30 members at one time, but the forum went under heavy modifications (sp?) so many people left, I think it should be kept on Wikipedia, but that's my opinion... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.169.210 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 23:01, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Levinson

nn musician. No entries in artistdirect or allmusic. Thre is only one entry in Google for "1175 Bolyston" that isn't Wikipedia, and it has nothing to do with this guy. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment the album is spelt Boylston not Bolyston.
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.UberCryxic 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Ektar 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, borderline speediable as A7. Irongargoyle 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I get a number of google hits - most seem self-promotion but there is an interview http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N31/31Levinson.html. I did suspect that this was self-promotion - but you'd think he'd spell the album name right. (Note the photo says it was taken by the person who wrote the article). -- Beardo 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It also looks to me like a self-promotion, Freshens (talk • contribs) is the articles creator and he hasn't had any edits to any other articles than this one. Stubbleboy 04:28, 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. W.marsh 19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You, Good Night and Chuck Griffith

nn film, direct to video after being on the shelf for five years, no signs of notability. And its director, whose only work sat on the shelf for five years before going direct to video. No signs of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Arbusto 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the movie, it may have been shelved, but it was still released, and given the circumstances of its release, I'll consider that notable as well. Mister.Manticore 04:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the movie - http://www.cinemaspeak.com/Reviews/tygn.html, and Mark Hamill needs a proper filmography. Possibly merge the director. -- Beardo 05:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Per Griffith's site: "Thank You, Good Night" starred Mark Hamill, Sally Kirkland, Nicole Eggert, J.P. Pitoc, Christian Campbell, Danny Wood, and Eddie Singletary. "Thank You, Good Night" was released in August 2006 on DVD and is on sale at Amazon.com.

Per his site he is basically a name-dropper who was involved in one non-notable movie. He lists himself as a television director but lists no credits. Good luck to him in his career but at this point he doesn't deserve a WP article. RickReinckens 04:52, 30 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 no consensus. Luna Santin 03:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald M. Kendrick

A choir teacher, no sources, created in April. I tagged this with {notability} because it lacks sources, WP:V, and notability. Then the creator of the article removed my tag and left a rude message on my talk. A choir teacher fails WP:BIO, that's assuming that this article is accurate even though it lacks sources. Arbusto 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also delete: Donald M. Kendrick/Temp. --Arbusto 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Asserts notability, but does not provide citations. Subject is more than a mere "choir teacher," but this article must provide evidence of the claims of international renown.Johnbrownsbody 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely lacks sources. Possible vanity. Resolute 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Asserts notability in article. Should come back to AfD if no citations ready. JASpencer 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that is exactly why this article is at AfD now. the creator was given plenty of time to cite sources and failed to. Resolute 16:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Remove the uncited text before bringing in an AFD. JASpencer 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't do that because it'd look like bad faith if the nominator removed the reasons for keeping the article. Arbusto 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - appears to be notable, simply lacking references. (I have added some). I can see nothing on either the main or talk pages about lack of referencing or lack of notability until tagged on 22 September. Just because an editor removed the tag, doesn't justify AfD. We need more articles on subjects like this, not less. -- Beardo 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The source you added was to confirm he started and directed a children's choir. How does that meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC? Arbusto 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually added five sources. I suggest that you spend more time trying to improve articles rather than just AfDing them. The CSUS bio could be used as a reference for much of the bio - but we need better references. It seems he was conductor on a recording of the Boston Philharmonic included in their 20th Anniversary Box set, but I am not sure a link to the Amazon listing for that is enough. -- Beardo 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You added links that don't assert anything to pass WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Arbusto 02:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country"; does the Canadian Encyclopedia count as reputable media ? -- Beardo 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have a source for a tour? I see claims that he played 5 European cities. Arbusto 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I count 17 unique hits outside Wikipedia. I ahve never heard of him, and I am a listener and occasional performer of classical and church music. I don't see any evidence that this guy reaches the level of notability of Stephen Darlington or Barry Rose, to name two I know personally. Proper sources, please? Guy 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which 17 you mean, Guy - but there seemed a lot more than that to me. (Not all references include the M.) -- Beardo 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one "Donald Kendrick". Narrow your searching to music or you'll get this Donald Kendrick [1] professor of psychology in Tennessee. Arbusto 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-documented article shows that Kendrick has achieved international exposure conducting choirs on world tours and in leading concert halls such as Carnegie Hall [2]. Characterizing him as just a "choir teacher" is misleading and insulting. --JJay 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Well-documented"? Which sources and how does he pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. The article asserts he played Carnegie Hall once, however, your link does not make that claim. It claims he is at CSUS and "director of music at Sacramento's Sacred Heart Church and co-founder and previous artistic director of the Sacramento Children's Chorus." He fails WP:MUSIC. Arbusto 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• This was already answered above: How about "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country". Not to mention the amazon albums, major concert halls, etc. Not bad for a "choir teacher" --JJay 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have a source that one of the albums he was part of sold 5,000 copies-- if so that meets WP:MUSIC and the article will be saved. Once again the claim that he played Cargnie Hall not only isnt cited, but is moot if WP:MUSIC isn't met. I agree with what another user said about your voting in AfDs.[3] Arbusto 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Music at your earliest convenience. Please review the article for the Carnegie Hall link - or are you contesting the NY Times as a valid source?. Otherwise, while I wasn't aware that Mr. Kendrick was a Norwegian ski jumper, I do value your opinion of my AfD voting at the same level as your AfD nominations. --JJay 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame me for your miscite on this afd page. So your basing his notability on an article from 11 years ago, which said "the ensemble" was hired "because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished." And the performance concluded "only the most overtly dramatic sections had any real drive. "[4] The NY Times even said his group WAS NOT DISTINGUISHED! Do you have a NY Times article from the last ten years to prove otherwise? Arbusto 22:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The one Times review of the Carnegie Hall performance is largely sufficient for me. Furthermore, I didn't have to search very hard for the link since despite your denials it was a source in the article. And while your selective quoting of the review is interesting, the Times does go on to say that "The chorus -- a combination of the Wayne State College Choir, the Donald Kendrick Chorale and the Long Island Masterworks Chorus -- produced a reliably robust, polished sound". --JJay 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great so he played one time with a bunch of other performers and sounded good with Wayne college, and Long Island performers. The issue is notablity and the source said "the ensemble" was hired "because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished." That is an article from 11 years ago. Anything current to prove notablity? Arbusto 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are sincerely interested in Mr. Kendrick's career, please read the article and follow the links. You will see that this "choir teacher" is far more accomplished than you are willing to acknowledge and has been actively touring. In the meantime, by repeatedly selectively misquoting a bolded passage from the Times - that was actually attributed to a musicians union protesting the use of foreign performers - you are seriously demeaning your argument. --JJay 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Follow;

1) The article states "Mr. Kendrick debuted in Carnegie Hall with the Verdi Requiem in 1995" with a NY Times article linked.

2) The NY Yimes article says "Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians challenged the orchestra members' visas, contending that Mr. Tiboris hired the ensemble because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished."

3) Then the article continues: "The performance of the Verdi Requiem on Saturday evening showed that the union may have a point. Although the orchestra's strings produced a unified, warm sound, its winds were lackluster, and its brass players muddled their big moment at the start of the Tuba mirum. The performance, conducted by Donald Kendrick, was surprisingly leisurely; only the most overtly dramatic sections had any real drive."

4) Got any sources from the last ten years to dispute this "not distinguished" claim? Arbusto 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep even the most distniguished musician can get the odd bad review. Bio also asserts performances on CBC, it would be nice to see direct proof of this, rather than via the university biog as this would then allow assesment on the following WP:MUSIC grounds:
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

JzG, I could also name a number of current and former English Cathedral Directors of Music (see the article I wrote on Stanley Vann for a start), but would struggle to do the same for cathedrals outside England I don't think that necessarily means that they are non-notable. David Underdown 08:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Peta 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others above. I'm not sold on the case that has been made for this subject's inclusion. PJM 02:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there simply isn't enough here to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Meets the notability criteria suggested at WP:MUSIC on several counts, such as radio network features and international tours. He has performed at Carnegie Hall at least twice. Even one hit wonders survive AfD, so if we delete this we would reinforce a systemic bias in favour of popular culture. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Alas. Carnegie Hall is available for all to rent. There's a New York company that specializes in bringing out-of-town choirs to NY to sing there - for a fee. It's essentially a vanity tour. (I've paid my money and done the same thing, and so have performed in CH.) The booker of these tours is mentioned in comments above. I don't think notability has been established. Bpmullins 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. PJM 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do these vanity concerts regularly get reviewed in NYT ? -- Beardo 12:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ours was, but I can't speak to the general case. Here is the current lineup for these Carnegie concerts. There are notable names as conductor (Rutter, for one) but the character of the choirs singing shows what the series is about, IMO. When we went, our director conducted because we'd brought along enough singers. -- Bpmullins 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional consideration: International tours is, like the Carnegie gigs, an overstatement. I've been on these tours as well; you pay for your tour (usually it's 2 weeks or so on a summer vacation) and sing several concerts in churches in various cities. Tours like this are a staple of the volunteer choral singer's life - most of us have been on one or more of these. The more I read the more convinced I am that the subject is NN, even though I'd probably love to sing for him. -- Bpmullins 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unconvincing notability.--Húsönd 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are sources, but they do not establish the subject as meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, unless we're seriously considering every person who has traveled with a choir on trips around the states as going on a major trip, in which case I'll start the bio on my middle school choir teacher soon. GassyGuy 05:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Does your choir teacher takes choral tours to Eastern Europe and China, and release records sold through Amazon from the tours ? -- Beardo 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but that's also not part of the guideline being cited as reason to keep. The keep votes say to keep because of the concert guideline of WP:MUSIC, and I made my reply to that. This issue is tangential at best and we can address it when that article goes to AfD. Also, it would be best not to refer to her as my choir teacher, as I haven't been in a choir for many a year.

• Comment I'm confused. This is AfD. This is it. The article will be deleted today if the consensus is Delete.

• I'm well aware of what this is. I was referring to the hypothetical AfD of my hypothetical article of my real former choir teacher. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Minor pop bands survive AfD by WP:MUSIC; there should be more conductors on WP.

• It's a fine ideal to hold, but the conductors still have to fall within some sort of policy. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC for a musician says one tour of a medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources, or one half-hour network radio broadcast. The sources say he has several of each of these. If you disagree with WP:MUSIC, that is fine, but if you do cite the guideline, please try to do so correctly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe I made that quite clear within my response when I introduced the segment being cited in my attempt to show why what holds true for a band or musician might not necessarily be the best arrangement for a conductor. Please don't be patronizing. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. For me, he fails the academics test. Batmanand | Talk 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Though in fairness I should note the creator has not left any messages on my talk page. Cedars 05:34, 1 October 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 as spam. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor Jewels

Strong Delete: Advertisement Paul Cyr 01:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 01:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless it can be edited into something that is not a blatent ad. --Supermath 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamvertising for NN [5] company. -- IslaySolomon 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete SPAM. Stubbleboy 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Burnificate with Chilli as fool's gold-plated blatant advertising. Article could be restated as "Buy my stuffs 'weblink'". Page still under construction, Alexa rank of 3,524,530 and just looking at the site makes my credit card twitch. Enough said. QuagmireDog 03:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wait, this is the definition of spamcruftvert (shudder). -- MarcoTolo 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The "contact us" kind of clinched it. JIP | Talk 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• The Emperor Has Deleted Clothes - VSCA. Need I say more? Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't believe there is anything wrong with this article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emperorjewels (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risciso

No articles link to it, clean-up since February with no action, NN, reads as nonsense. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hoax? Arbusto 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

*Keep did anyone do there homework here before coming to consensus? I've cleaned up the article, and it's not a hoax. Stubbleboy 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect after further investigation, I've discovered that we already have an article by the name of Operation Site Down which includes information regarding this article. This Organization was only a small entity within a large FBI initiative. Stubbleboy 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after the recent improvements, it's making progress. -- Beardo 04:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if not Merge per above Sirex98 02:50, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Careers Online

This entry fails to meet the criteria of WP:CORP and is written in an ad-like tone. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN. The creator of the article also spammed his links on legitinate educational wiki articles. Arbusto 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spamcruftvert. -- MarcoTolo 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 11:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Dot Not Delete The links can (and now are)taken out. They were only provided for their relevance, but they are done away with. I would like to make the article appropriate, please address that instead of the deletion process. Thanks!agr723 27 September 2006 3:19 PM (EST)

To keep the article it should conform to WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Arbusto 03:29, 28 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BluejackQ

A failure of WP:WEB. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa Traffic Rank for bluejackq.com: 225,452. Had a significant reach when the website was founded, since then has dropped off significantly. Stubbleboy 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:WEB does not specify that the media interest must be recent. Mahahahaneapneap 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in a a Google search for Bluejacking, the top two pages listed are from BluejackQ. A search for Bluejack gives two pages from BluejackQ as well. Mahahahaneapneap 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this article up for deletion is not about Bluejacking in general as a process, it is about the website BluejackQ specifically.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that it is the largest website on the subject. Mahahahaneapneap 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Alexa says the site had 30,668 people visit the site today. The article is still in it's early days and therefore should be kept Mike 18:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. When 225,000 websites have more than 30,000 hits a day, that tells me 30,000 hits isn't that high a number relative to other websites. Fan-1967 18:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. WP:WEB says nothing about the number of hits a site must receive. Mahahahaneapneap 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As a member of the forums for 3 years now i must agree that yes, the forums and website don't get as many views as it once did, but it's adapting to a change in interests of the general public and untill that change is complete, i think we should keep the article and discuss deletion at a later stage.Rick-E 18:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Ricke26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep per above Valoem ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: the media links show it passes WP:WEB. Go to reference three and see for yourself. Batmanand | Talk 10:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Its crap —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.227.65 (talk • contribs).

Comment. How is that constructive to the article. I think we should just ignore his view. He didn't even sign it. Mike 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the contrib history - seems to be promoting a competing site. Fan-1967 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see how it satisfies WP:WEB. shotwell 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Could you please explain how it does not satisfy WP:WEB? As media sources are linked too Mike 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The vast majority of those media sources trivially mention the site in passing or feature an interview with someone from the site. Are any of the articles about the site itself? shotwell 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it satisfies WP:WEB. Adamlonsdale 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I found this link to be most convincing in relation to our WP:WEB guidelines. RFerreira 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per shotwell's comment above, you might want to review the content at the linked sites. Looks like mostly mentions of the site, rather than articles about it, and all over 2 1/2 years ago. Not sure there's what could be classed as "multiple, non-trivial" reports. Fan-1967 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I purpose that this article is relisted to gain a better consensus. Stubbleboy 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think that there is a consensus for keep. Mike 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment With 7 delete and 7 keep you think there is a consensus of keep??? Stubbleboy 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Does an anonymous user saying "it's crap" count as a vote? Mahahahaneapneap 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment ah-ha! Good point. Stubbleboy 22:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment either it's too early for me, or i'm thick. But i only count 5 delete votes :| and 7 keep votes. I'm going to feel dumb if i can't count

• I get 7 Keep to 6 Delete, but I'd toss one of each ("It's crap" from anon, whose only other contributions are promoting a competing Bluejack forum, and "I've been a forum member for three years and I think we should keep it" from an SPA). That looks like a No Consensus to me. Fan-1967 18:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think that i would have to agree on the vote of no consensus. Mike 17:09, 5 October 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 of the debate was keep. --Stubbleboy 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car insurance in Ireland

Previously nom here. This article, besides being an unencyclopedic topic, appears to be an original interpretation of an uncited report, delete--Peta 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless there is a serious rewrite and source addition. Arbusto 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While it is "soon" after the last afd, I'd hate to see a NN article seek through just because someone renominated it too "quickly." Arbusto 03:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete there are no sources for this jibberish. Stubbleboy 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: In light of realizing this was just nominated for AFD a week ago, I am withdrawling my consensus from this AFD. AFD is not for Wikipedia:Cleanup. --Stubbleboy 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Re-opening this discussion a mere 7 days after the prior discussion was closed, with at least two editors saying that the article should be marked for the attention of and cleanup by Irish Wikipedians, given the existence of quite a few sources on the subject, is an abuse of AFD. AFD is not cleanup. This renomination is effectively a demand by the nominator that cleanup progress at the rapid pace that xe sets. One doesn't get to demand that volunteer editors work to a pace that one sets. A better use of xyr time would have been to take the sources cited in the prior AFD discussion and, using them, improve the article xyrself. This warrants one of my very few Speedy keeps. Uncle G 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep Only a week has past since last nom . Not enough time to improve the articial (Gnevin 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

• There is no policy (that I can find) on time limits between nominations. The fact is this is a rubbish, unencyclopedic article that nobody is going to fix.--Peta

Reply: WP:POINT comes to mind (yes, it's a guideline, not a policy). Anyway, if you feel the previous AFD was wrong, you could (an should) go to WP:DRV, not just restart one. Restarting a correct AfD on such short notice is a disruption of the AfD process. I have regularly initiated AfD's that are at the end kept to my astonishment, and I wouldn't dream of renominating them without waiting at least six months (probably a year), unless something has changed considerably in the meantime (like, a new policy of guideline on notability gets accepted). Oh, and keep because of recent AFD decision. Fram 14:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. What is the hurry here Peta? Is there a fire or some other impending disaster? Allow one month or six months for improvement but one week is not reasonable at all. If no improvements are made then renominate it later BUT NOT NOW. ww2censor 16:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - it's just been through nom. What's the problem? Besides, its passes WP:NOT- Alison^✍ 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - If you didn't like the original Keep, take it to deletion review. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, too soon after first nomination, WP:POINT. Use WP:DRV to question closed XfDs. WP:AFD is not a cleanup center. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - in the last vote I said it needed work. There has not been time yet in my view Nigel ^(Talk) 12:10, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Norwegian ski jumpers

This list must surely be superflouos when we have Category:Norwegian ski jumpers. Also, nothing links here. Egil 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a sensible idea to me (the category). Delete MidgleyDJ 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Redundant. MER-C 11:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If the list was expanded to document olympic medals won, highest world ranking or other relevant information, it would be worth keeping. Its pretty useless right now though, particularly as there are no criteria for inclusion which would result in differences from the category. Oldelpaso 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I started this article as I wanted it to be something like Oldelpaso said. However, I ran out of sources so I left it at the present state for other users to accomplish. Lists as such are IMO useful as long as they contain red links, in that regard they contain more info than a category. --Tone 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lists have uses categories don't. Like red links and annotation. It needs sourcing and should be limited to people who are known for being Norwegian ski jumpers. I think it'll fit that so has no problems per the guidelines.--T. Anthony 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Hello? The list doesn't have any red links. Delete. Punkmorten 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant that is an advantage a list has over a category, don't be so literal.--T. Anthony 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I often defend keeping list, such as List of Chadians. However, in this debate we are discussing a list which doesn't seem to have any use. Actually if you examine the edit history I took the time to categorize this particular list, believing that a bright future lay ahead of it. It turns out it didn't, and now it's time to get rid of it. Punkmorten 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll trust you're judgment on this.--T. Anthony 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep perfectly good list. Jcuk 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Use categories for notable people. Arbusto 23:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is hopeless. Perfectly good list, indead. For anyone that has even an iota of kwonledge about the subject, the list is just a more or less random selection of the names from Category:Norwegian ski jumpers. It does not add any value to anything. Wrt. to the redlinks, it seems quite clear that smoe of the voters above has not even bothered to look at the page. -- Egil 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously could be useful if expanded and annotated. I agree that the category is not needed and could be profitably deleted. --JJay 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The category could be deleted? What on earth are you talking about? Punkmorten 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please explain how the category could "profitably [be] deleted". Arbusto 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, lists are better than categories. They can be expanded and annotated. Categories just take up space. Please delete the category. --JJay 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you have a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. Categories are of paramount importance. Punkmorten 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, your opinion is noted. For others with serious misunderstandings, see WP:CFD. --JJay 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your misunderstandings isn't isolated to this afd either. Arbusto 21:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I defer to your expert knowledge of misunderstanding. --JJay 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No value compared to the category. Pavel Vozenilek 16:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepGLGerman 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In this case the category does a far better job. --IslaySolomon 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This particular list doesn't add anything that the category already provides. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, offers no value compared to the category. JIP | Talk 07:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we already have the category and wikipedia is not a list. Stubbleboy 12:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Which is exactly why we have Wikipedia:Featured lists T REX_speak 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with category.--Isotope23 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Redundant bernlin2000 ∞ 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is a list of non bias true information Valoem ^talk 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not a reason for keeping it. T REX_speak 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment But it is also a list of notable people which makes it like any other list. Also see Wikipedia:List guideline a category does not necessary mean it can't have a list because lists can be more informative. Valoem ^talk 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • But this one is not. Punkmorten 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing has been done with this, time to go. ~ trialsanderrors 09:46, 29 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 deleted, vanity spam, part of a walled garden. Guy 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Dynamic Visual Acuity Test

promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant spam and completely unverifiable. 0 google hits. Irongargoyle 03:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no doubt this is spam. Mitaphane _talk 04:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spam spam spam spam. - Richardcavell 06:02, 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, cleaning up vanity spam walled garden by user:Sandystraus Guy 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Clock Drawing Test

promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Ford

Daughter of President Gerald Ford. This article was tagged for speedy deletion under A7 (no notability asserted) which seems ill-advised since we do have various entries on Presidential offspring. I don't know if Susan Ford should gain entry into this élite group, so I'm putting this up for AfD instead. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain for now. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Gerald Ford. T REX_speak 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why speedy? ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • At the time the article appeared to be non notable by herself, but now that new evidence of notability has been brought in I think it would be best to Keep this article. T REX_speak 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Gerald Ford (or Betty Ford). -- Beardo 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, runs Betty Ford Center, former photojournalist, published author (two "First Daughter" mysteries), co-founder of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I think all White House kids (as opposed to, perhaps, adult kids of Presidents) are covered by the blanket "involvement in newsworthy events" clause. Or put it this way, they would have to try to be un-notable. The media attention is often intense (and this dates back to Lincoln). --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I get 2104 news hits on Newsbank for "Susan Ford". They might not all be about her, but the first couple of pages surely are. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems pretty notable on her own, not only through her father. JIP | Talk 07:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Dhartung. --Stubbleboy 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: while I'm strongly against the "notability by proxy" arguments (I have nominated for AfD (with varying success) persons like Newton Earp, some children of Lincoln, and some brothers of Nixon), in this case she matches WP:BIO already for her literary work (see the magazine reviews as compiled on Amazon[6]). Combined with her other achievements and her ancestry (which, while in itself not sufficient, does give some extra notability), and this is a clear keep. Fram 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. DCEdwards1966 16:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Fram that notability by association in and of itself is insufficient; however, in this case, the subject of the article meets the criteria of WP:BIO on her own merits. Agent 86 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this subject is well above our notability standards. RFerreira 23:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Happy to withdraw my nomination if that speeds up the process. ~ trialsanderrors 05:04, 29 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 (and should have been a CSD G4, but it doesn't matter now). Duja 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design for Diversity

Recreation of a previously AFDed article. The original ADF discussion was not extensive, however this article fails W:CORP and fails to provide any independent verification of the importance of this group, delete --Peta 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. Arbusto 05:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete There actually is a request for this article to be created (See link in discussion section of the article page). How do you reconcile that sort of contradiction? There are plenty of aricles on Wiki without sufficient sources which are allowed to remained undeleted. As long as the fact that further sources are needed is clearly stated, why not just leave it there for other editors to add to it? Have you actually read the article? The importance of the company comes from who the founding partners are. The article is also relevant to Wikipedia as a complement to the articles about the founding members. I don't think WP:CORP quite applies in this case. --- Zefrog 11.47, 27 September 2006 (GMT)
  • We have criteria for notability and verifiability because this is an encyclopedia. It's not too difficult to work out to that you've got something to do with the organisation.--Peta 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, an article being requested means nothing. Absolutely nothing. I have requested articles before (such as Gone Daddy Gone, which was created after I requested it, though my request was probably completely unrelated to why it was created), but so have people who request crap. One could easily request List of Australian ice hockey players who own chihuahuas. Not all requests become articles, and not all requests deserve to become articles. -- Kicking222 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 16:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• That's an answer to one argument, what about: "There are plenty of aricles on Wiki without sufficient sources which are allowed to remained undeleted. As long as the fact that further sources are needed is clearly stated, why not just leave it there for other editors to add to it? The importance of the company comes from who the founding partners are. The article is also relevant to Wikipedia as a complement to the articles about the founding members. I don't think WP:CORP quite applies in this case."? --Zefrog 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. Greenshed 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, there is nothing, I don't think, in that article that can not be easily verified. --62.136.110.211 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, least of all it doesn't currently meet WP:CORP. If it does at a later date then the article can be brought back then (Zefrog - we could userfly it into your userspace if you wanted). Thanks/wangi 16:30, 4 October 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RyKe Presents 'Ice City' (Mashing 80's Pop/Rock With Modern Rap)

Debut album by "mash-up" artist who has not yet had any records released. Publicity is done from a Myspace page. Andrew Levine 02:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A7. The article was created by the album's producer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. This also seems to be vanity and, since "the...disc is set to be released this fall", it's crystal balling too. --IslaySolomon 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as described above. - Richardcavell 06:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Electric Vehicle Association

nn wiki, fairly local in scope, so hard to establish notability, alexa rating of 2,413,464 Giant onehead 03:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Electric Auto Association or Delete without prejudice. It's a very short article that's had {{notability}} up for a month and a half, with no attempts to assert notability. It's a chapter of EAA, though that article doesn't look in great shape either. --Interiot 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe mention the chapter in the main article. Nothing to merge. Vegaswikian 02:20, 1 October 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 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightmare on Elm Street Companion

contested prod for 3 days, tag was removed. NN fansite that has spam entry and only claim to notability was being credited on a DVD. Alexa rating is 956,771 and has never been in top 100,000. This site is not suitable for WP. Giant onehead 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. The website link is already covered on the Nightmare... article. Mitaphane _talk 03:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 15:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASO Radio

nn anime podcast, alexa of 3,211,418, fails WP:WEB Giant onehead 03:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Most likely WP:OR or WP:VAIN, given author of article has the same handle as the creator of the podcast. Mitaphane _talk 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Roninbk _{t c #} 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 08:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete podcasts, unless hosted by a notable personality, generally are not notable. The article also has too few citations for it to pass the smell test for original research. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Anime Alliance

nn web forum/organization, has spammy/ad-like entry and alexa rating is 1,249,867, all factors mean it fails WP:WEB Giant onehead 03:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Roninbk _{t c #} 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable, etc. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not exhibit signs of passing WP:WEB. Alexa rank is not a reason to keep or delete. --Kunzite 12:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoon (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an interesting variation off Brainfuck. -- Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 1 October 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 08:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THRAT

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 15:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TMMLPTEALPAITAFNFAL

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this is an unusual programming language, because the rules change every day. JIP | Talk 07:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a novel idea doesn't make something notable. Being widely noticed does. Gazpacho 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only 1000 google hits on a computer-related topic, many of them are related to the article. Highly unnotable. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. Stubbleboy 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Delete" per me? I voted keep. JIP | Talk 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment My apologies sir. And plese remember AFD is not a vote. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Another joke programming language with few adherents. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:03, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toadskin

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 07:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. Stubbleboy 16:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TWiRQ

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 07:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. Stubbleboy 17:00, 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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comics Curmudgeon

nn comic book blog, fails WP:WEB, alexa of 2,361,475 Giant onehead 03:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 335,000 GHits, which seem mostly appropriate. Admittedly, they seem to almost all be other blogs, but I still think it rolls over the notability line. - Richfife 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't think that's a very valid or convincing reason for a keep vote, check this search with the site name and the bloggers name, gets 110 unique hits [7], hope that convinces more. Giant onehead 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree. Tomato, tomahto, I guess. - Richfife 04:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well then you must be completely retarded then. Giant onehead 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for sharing! - Richfife 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable as a critic within the comics community. Alexa Rank of the older URL joshreads.com is 58,594, which is pretty good for a blog. I found a couple of independent media mentions. And Giant onehead, please remain civil. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You know something, screw it, I withdraw the nomination. If you want this crap to flood WP, then be my guest. Giant onehead 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm no fan of blogs (as subject of Wikipedia articles at least), but as fas as they go, this one is noteworthy. Has apparently been a Yahoo pick of the day[8], author is a recognised authority in the comics world (e.g. he was asked for a podcast on this forum[9], he is a contributor to ITworld.com[10], he is referenced on Daily Cartoonist[11], ...). Fram 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not meet WP:WEB. Needs verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this blogger has been quite successful Subwayguy 00:16, 29 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. W.marsh 19:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrie Ward

Fails the WP:BIO criteria. Claims to have had a job at a minor radio station and was breifly a the CEO of a non-notable company, though none of these claims have been verified thus failing the WP:V policy as well. Only 282 Google results [12], of which basically all are from Wikipedia and its mirrors.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keap He's done some sort of notable things. I'm feeling generous, although he doesn't really fit the letter of the law. - Richfife 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, none of the claims in the article have been verified and I can't seem to find them anywhere. Stubbleboy 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Kicking222 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The claims in many wiki articles are not necessarily verified but in this case I know the man and can verify.

Broadcastnews 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. Knowing a person does not merit notability. After all, please remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Arbusto 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless someone finds sources. Cool3 01:06, 5 October 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 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Castro

nn model, 521 unique google hits [13], a few bit movie parts, failed diva search contestant, fails WP:BIO Giant onehead 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yep, models don't get much more generic than that. - Richfife 04:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 17:07, 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 merge. W.marsh 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabel Sasser

Article does not describe a notable person per WP:NN and WP:BIO guidelines. Additionally, a PROD was put on this article, and it was removed WITHOUT substancial improvement to this article OR defense of the notability of this subject. To be honest, it reads like a vanity article. It should be deleted. --Jayron32 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Panic (company). - Richfife 04:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep? Extend? I just discovered this page thanks to Google Alerts. I could add a whole lot of content to this entry to make it significantly more, well, significant. I can certainly elaborate on my contributions to the field of computer software design, web sites, etc., dating back to 1994 at least and including many (honest) industry firsts. Unfortunately, it would feel incredbily awkward to write about myself, and I'm not even sure that's allowed under Wikipedia rules. Any advice? Can I enlist good friend Steven Frank to improve this entry and give it one last chcance before you guys delete it? If not, no sweat. Thanks! - Cabel 66.93.40.145 18:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Writing about yourself isn't actually outright forbidden (a lot of people are mistaken about this), but it's strongly discouraged: Vanity and Autobiography. The general rule of thumb is that if no one is independently inspired to write about you, then you're probably not notable enough to have an article. By extension, you really shouldn't enlist other people to write about you either. However, if you want to add something to the discussion page of the article proper, I'll consider folding it in as a disinterested party who had never heard of you before last night. No promises. Notability, verifiability and reliable source rules still apply, so I will have to assume that everything you say is a lie until I can find (or you can provide) a second source to back it up. - Richfife 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reply also Merge to Panic (company) is a good idea. I want to second everything that Richfife has to say. Writing about yourself (OR writing about your buddies OR getting your buddies to write about you) feels wrong. It is still possible to do, but you had BETTER make sure you have LOTS of goot citations from third parties as to your notability. Copious citations from reputable press would be a good start. Do people in major newsmagazines write about you? Do you appear in any Forbes list or equivalent? Does a textbook cite you as an authority in your field? Do others cite your work? Has a major publication named you to its "Top 100 most" whatever list? If any of these are true, then CITE THE SOURCES for the rest of us to check out. If you can do that, and do it many times, I will change my vote. --Jayron32 02:02, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Yeaton

fails WP:BIO, just a WWE timekeeper, not really all that notable, should just be kept on the WWE Roster page, only 142 unique google hits [14] Giant onehead 04:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article has about as misplaced a tone of outrage as I've ever seen. - Richfife 04:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - his role in the "scandal" isn't major enough to warrant a separate article, particularly given that one on the entire thing already exists. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The fact that he is a timekeeper doesn't make him noteable. If he were involved in an ongoing storyline, perhaps... Stubbleboy 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete His role in the Montreal Screwjob can be summed up in one sentence, so he's not notable in that regard. Just a mention on the roster page should be sufficient.--Darren Jowalsen 21:11, 1 October 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Logos

Gallery of fair use media, delete per WP:NOT and the obvious copyright issues a gallery of this kind of thing creates. --Peta 04:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The images should be removed immediately under Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #8, which in the article's current form, would make it under CSD #A3. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and make Category:University and college logos for the images. (If the images remain fair use in their respective articles, there's no reason we can't categorize them.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Summer Bash Tour

Non-notable wrestling tour, PROD removed by User:195.93.21.104 an IP known for vandalism TJ Spyke 04:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN house show. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 04:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 14:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Knight

Are all Playboy models notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm kind of sorry I followed the link - Richfife 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article currently attempts to cover two different people using the same name without adequately separating their information. It is not clear that either of them satisfies WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Two? I thought it was three. Goes to show how unclear the article is. Irongargoyle 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe it is three, I can't tell. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN.--Húsönd 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Irongargoyle 23:37, 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 speedy delete as admitted hoax vandalism, per this edit by Brucewillisrocks001 (talk • contribs), the article's creator. Uncle G 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great escape remake

WP:NOT a crystal ball. There is no IMDB entry for this film to indicate it is even in production. My quick sampling of search results with Bruce Willis and 2008 included reveals no appropriate sources. Erechtheus 04:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy Delete' per creator's comment below. Hoax, possibly an attempt at wish fullfillment. I enjoyed the article creator's trumpeting of the First Amendment as a reason to remove the prod - Richfife 05:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless and until there's proof that it's in production. Somehow, I'm not convinced by the US Constitution's "right to write about made-up movies". BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC) i totally have a right to make up movies... if i dont, call the cops on me dude, i'll take them on at checkers, as well
• Delete as above. Load of bollocks. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. Ramsquire 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the above and the below. —Whomp ^(myedits) 21:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

so heres how it is.

i made this up

and thats not a bad thing

in fact

i know several people who are incredibly angry at bruce willis and the director of Torque for having such a bad idea

i dont know if theyre still buying it. but if they are

please find it in your hearts to keep this up for atleast two or three more days

but yeah, the first ammendment thing was a joke

so dont make me out to be some lame ass clown that uses bill of rights as an excuse to buy an assault rifle

no, im much more partial to bolt action rifles myself

if you got a problem with this then come to my house (i live in rhode island near providence, i will give you the info later if you wanna go)

but seriously. come over

i will school you in a game of checkers, and you will shamefully walk out my door and back to wherever you came from

but if you do win, which i doubt will happen cuz i totally own at checkers (seriously with in the first like three turns i already have like eight kings and your gonna be like woah howd he get all those friggin kings???), i will totally take down the article

hakuna matata,

jakke

ps. i'm still waiting for some loser to correct me for saying colonol hilts instead of captain hiltz

pps. the original great escape is way better than the new one, believe me, i've read the script for this one and that excerpt is about as cool as it gets the rest is just talk scenes and bruce willis doesnt even take his clothes off

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zac Koo

Non notable actor, fails WP:BIO. As the article states, he plays very minor roles. Fram 04:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Creator's other articles look like they need AfD's as well. - Richfife 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, let's see. He does have a IMDB profile, but they're for very very minor roles (even though those are significant movies). As far as I know, he's only released one song, so he can't get in on WP:MUSIC either. So delete. ColourBurst 06:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition of the stupid

This is a non-notable neologism. There are 206 unique search engine hits for the term. None of the results I sampled augment notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The problem with this article is that none of the quotes actually use the phrase "Coalition of the stupid". Moreschi 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --rogerd 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. PJM 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as well - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, the article is a week old and deals with a term which has been expounded through the western media, from university presses through to mainstream non-US media in reference to the 'war on terror' ordeal. Further, it is relevant on the same grounds as Cheese eating surrender monkeys. I believe that the instant attempt at removal of this article is based moreso on political / ethnic POV and not neutrality nor academic or encyclopedic evaluation. Jachin 06:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) <-- Admins: Feel free to go through my track record, I've never once done the, "You're just deleting it because you disagree with it line." but am putting my neck out simply because I believe that impartiality has been negated by racism in this instance. Jachin 06:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is extremely important that you peruse WP:AGF because you are most certainly not doing so in your above comment. The racism charge is also in violation of WP:CIVIL. I will note beyond this that you have not provided appropriate sources per WP:RS to back up your claims. Erechtheus 06:37, 30 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. W.marsh 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heim theory

I am reluctant to nominate a page for deletion that has had so much work put into it. The work here has, as far as I can tell, never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (one of the criteria for inclusion for physical theories in general on wikipedia) and the entirety of the links supporting assertions made in the article appear to be to private companies. Even though the article sometimes takes great pains to announce its non-mainstream status (i.e., satisfies WP:NPOV), for the reasons above it violates WP:OR and thus I believe should be deleted. Sdedeo (tips) 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled Sdedo, on 27 September you nominate Heim for deletion but announce on your discussion page that you tire of WP and are taking a sabbatical. Would it not have been better to not have taken this action while you are on Vacation? Have a beer on me. Will314159 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT. Apparently User Sdedo has bid farewell to WP not b/c of Heim but in a tizzy about Lorentz Invariance in Loop Quantum Gravity "I have left the wikipedia project. I wish everyone luck. Here is the final version of some remarks I made on science and wikipedia:". My question is " Can Anybody just nominate ANY article for deletion for any reason or no reason as a parting whim?" Cheers. Will314159 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be one of the two persons which are responsible for Sdedeo's departure. It's a pity as he was a good contributor. However, I do not feel guilty. I never attacked him personally and moreover the more LQG papers I looked into, the more I felt he was wrong about the rather obscure problemm we discussed. I simply believe Sdedeo had a bad day. I sincerly hope he will return soon to Wikipedia. I do not believe his Wikibreak changes anything in the procedure which he started. Friendly Neighbour 12:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just want to make clear that it's not FN's fault at all -- see my talk page. I will say that the ill-informed keep votes here are depressing; some good faith votes seem to be based on a single New Scientist reference. It's unfortunate to say this, since I grew up with NS and it's a main reason I became a scientist, but if we claim to be an encyclopedia, as opposed to a link farm, we need to examine sources critically. Plenty of excellent, knowledgable scientists have weighed in on the ridiculousness of Heim theory's claims. It's disappointing that nobody wants to listen to them. Sdedeo (tips) 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Many excellent scientists have also weighed in on the tremendous promise of Heim's theory. It is even more disappointing that they do not get more of a hearing. Never mind. Those who recognoise its potential appear to have saved the article - the keeps appear to outnumber the deletes. --192.171.3.126 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (the esoc.esa.int anon near Darmstadt)

Sdedeo. Glad u r sticking around to participate in what you started. Notability is more relevant for WP than alleged ridiculousness. In fact ridiculousness may be notable. Cheers. User:Will314159 12:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment / Question: Hi, Sdedeo. I am extremely interested in critical articles/papers/texts analyzing HT. I am aware of Sean Carroll's short statement which is quoted a few lines below. I also noted John Baez's statement in his reply below. I am 200% sure that their judgement is based on careful examination of HT. Unfortunately, i havent been able so far to find any detailed analysis/critic of HT by Baez, Carroll, or anybody else. Since HT is 30+ years old, i expect that several documents exist, that explain why HT must be wrong. Please could you give me just some (3-5 maybe) links to those Plenty you mention ? I admit its annoying, but i prefer to be convinced instead of just believing. Thanks. MillKa 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are none; that "many excellent scientists" have "weighed in" on the "tremendous promise" of HT is, of course, a fabrication. I never said there were "plenty" of articles describing how ridiculous HT is. I said it had been ignored by the scientific community and that not one peer-reviewed paper had been published on the topic. You are not going to find a serious scientist spending more than a minute on this silly thing; that two have (Phil and Sean) is surprising, but I suggest if you are looking for an education that you read up. Sdedeo (tips) 19:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Sdedeo: Now im confused, maybe because my native tongue is german, not english. The 'tremendous promise of HT' statement which you qualify as fabrication came from that 'anon esoc.esa guy'. But my question didnt refer to his statement, but your statement above: Plenty of excellent, knowledgable scientists have weighed in on the ridiculousness of Heim theory's claims. It's disappointing that nobody wants to listen to them. Well, i want. I always thought 'plenty' means something like 'more than enough' and so i was asking you for some substantial arguments instead of just soundbytes. Unfortunately im not as mentally gifted as those serious scientists you mentioned, who need just one minute to evaluate quite complex theories. I am way slower. So if you know of some substantial arguments, i would love to read or listen to them. Having only the option to believe authorities is somehow intellectually unsatisfying, instead i prefer to torture my brain cells till they give up (dont worry, that wont take that long .. ;-P). Then i can still turn to those brighter than me. But first i want to try on my own, because there is a difference between learning by heart and understanding: Back in school when i first heard about special relativity, i quickly absorbed the formulas. Then my physics teacher showed me a few crackpot proofs denying relativity and i realized that i 'knew' they were wrong but i failed to spot where exactly their error was. It took me a while to learn that 'why-level'. MillKa 12:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry -- was referring there to comments on this page from scientists. I doubt you'd get much out of "disproving" Heim theory for yourself, as as far as I can tell it's just riddled with inconsistencies and nonsensical statements. Sdedeo (tips) 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's another one. The author, Gerhard Bruhn, demonstrates that the modern extension of Heim theory is incompatible with the sort of spacetime metric necessary in GR, since Hauser and Droescher's efforts seem to inevitably give rise to a manifold that is exclusively flat: which simply does not work in light of what we know about the world. The same chap has some things to say about "Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory", too, and his website is a trove of similar writings. Good on him — someone needs to do that sort of work! Byrgenwulf 20:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. Bruhn is knocking down a straw man. CLASSICAL GR (general relativity) simply stated has two principles. 1) matter curves spacetime and 2)matter takes its instructions on how to move from curved spacetime. Implicit in those principles is that "empty" spacetime is FLAT because there is not matter there to curve it. But in quantized spactime such as in HT AND LQG artifice matter exists in 1) HT as excitations in the metron lattice and in 2)LQG as preons (very small building blocks) constituted of braids of spacetime able to survive quantum fluctuations. Bruhn is using classical methods to misconsture quantum mechanical concepts. Not the first time the strange world of QM has confounded. Best Wishes. User:Will314159 02:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Byrgenwulf. Thanks a lot for providing an argument that contains statements to check. While i try to wrap my head around it, what do you think of Will14159's comment above ? Did Bruhn fall into a overcrowded trap ? MillKa 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think so. The problem isn't that the manifold is flat in the absence of matter. The problem is that their manifold would appear be flat in the presence of matter, as well (which means that they can't account for how GPS works). Vague appeals to "quantum fluctuations" and so forth don't help: more is needed. And the blunder that Hauser and Droescher make in calling a spacetime with imaginary dimensions "R^n" is also rather worrying, questions of metrics and manifolds and things aside...it doesn't bode well for the rigour and accuracy of the rest of their work (because at any time, they may appear to be talking about one thing, but meaning another: how do we tell?). Bruhn was being charitable when he started working with a spacetime with Minkowskian signature, because the letter of what the Heim theory people wrote says that their spacetime's signature is positive definite, which doesn't cut it. Byrgenwulf 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Byrgenwulf. I went to your GPS and got global positioning system. went to disambiguation page and didn't see anything that looked right. Did your really mean that? Cheers User:Will314159 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Byrgenwulf. Bruhn is essentially just splitting hairs over notation. He objects to the use of symbols like R4 to refer to Minkowski space, while Hauser and Droscher just say it's clear in context what they mean. It's somewhat disingenuous of Bruhn, as he would do better to attack the idea of hermetry forms and show where Heim-Droscher went wrong in applying a sort of Kaluza-Klein reasoning to get the forces out of the subspaces. I.e. to be meaningful as an objection he should go to the meat of the theory and not footle round with nicities of notation. Which is all beside the point. Just as many scientists have given the thumbs up here as against. Sdedeo in his or her last comment again commits the crime that Milka had objected against - i.e. "as as far as I can tell it's just riddled with inconsistencies and nonsensical statements" - without being more specific or inspiring confidence that Sdedeo has looked intot he matter in any detail. Any more than Jordan, Von Weizacher & co. did, for example. So as I say - all beside the point - the consensus here is clearly to keep the article. So let's just wait for the Bot to do its job and remove that unsightly deletion notice.--hughey 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Bruhn's criticism isn't just about the notation. It is that Heim theory is not relativistic, whatever its proponents might say. A globally Minkowskian spacetime may work for SR, but it contradicts what we know about gravity. And even if Hauser and Droescher say that their version of "R^4" just means Minkowski space, and we live in "R^4", then the theory still does not live up to GR. To Will: yes, I was referring to the global positioning system. A theory formulated in a globally Minkowskian space would predict that GPS co-ordinates would be out by a little bit, because the corrections the software makes to deal with spacetime curvature from gravity etc. would be unnecessary. But whether or not Heim theory is true is not important here, according to Wikipedia policy. Byrgenwulf 10:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I WANTED to edit the WikiNews "Hyperspace drive" paper gains interest, AIAA award Article. The article mentions in a box that WP has an article on HT. I wanted to add that such article was nominated for deletion. But alas editing WikiNews involves registration. Too much trouble to do that on a Monday. Wiskis for the Editors and Beers for the Horses. User:Will314159 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Heim theory never appeared in a journal because Heim was reclusive paranoic. Pavel Vozenilek 09:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Heim being a "reclusive paranoic" has anything to do with his theory not being published or accepted by the scientific community. Just ask Grigori Perelman :). Count Iblis 21:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask Newton - after a bit of optics he concentrated on alchemy and was dismissed as a lunatic - worse that Perelman - until Leibnitz threated to scoop him and he got the skids on to write the Principia. Ever hear of hte eccentric professor?-- 172.181.159.226 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (AOL proxy)

I think Wikipedia takes official credits (published - good, being professor - even better) too much and this leaves out the specie of "mad scientists" who do not fit well with academic cookie cutter. (No, this is not a support for the Time Cube guy :-). Pavel Vozenilek 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Another comment: I don't know if this is relevant, but at least Heim theory has been used in winning AIAA paper for space propulsion, strange as it may be. Maybe this theory is getting more exposure in near future? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

Comment: This is 130.232.139.48 (talk • contribs)'s first and only edit. Also, the article which got the AIAA recognition has been thoroughly fisked — see Phil Plait's take at Bad Astronomy, where the cosmologist Sean Carroll of Caltech weighed in, calling the paper "not worth spending a minute's time on [...] no better than the other hundred crackpot preprints I get in the mail every year". Anville 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, I can confirm that cranks often cite in a highly misleading fashion this bizarre episode. As for New Scientist, just see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EmDrive. ---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, it should not be deleted: The reason it should not be deleted is that it is an account of a non-mainstream but real theory which probably has as much ultimate credence as string theory. In fact, probably more, as there are some predictions it makes that can be tested. This accords it the status of a theory far more than does inclusion in a peer-reviewed journal. The account given here is probably the best lay introduction available at the moment. Even if it does turn out to be utter bunk, it has plenty of adherents and exists as an intellectual movement. ---193.132.159.169 (talk • contribs) (MCI EMEA in Europe)

Comment: According to this article, Heim theory not only can be tested, but has been! For example, its predictions of the proton, neutron and electron masses are wrong by about 100 standard deviations. That's impressively far from correct! According to Chebysheff's inequality, a prediction that's 100 standard deviations off has at least a 99.99% chance of being wrong. So, we can be pretty sure that Heim theory is "utter bunk". But as you note, it may still deserve an article, just because a bunch of people believe it. There are, after all, articles on the flat earth theory and phlogiston - why not a similar one on Heim theory? John Baez 05:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If you took the trouble to read the article carefully, you would have noticed that all these predicted masses are wrong by about the same percentage in the same direction (Heim's predictions are consistently about 95-100 SD's too massive). This is easily explained by having the incorrect value of gravitational constant G as a starting point; the calculations have been made based on the currently known value of G, which is quite approximate. They are internally consistent, though. Freederick 03:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In an ideal world, I would agree with you entirely. However, our world falls short of the ideal in many ways — one being the difference between the number of living phlogistophiles and the number of Heim theory admirers. On abstract, philosophical grounds, I can see an argument for keeping this article around, but as a practical matter, I can only see the interests of truth being served by allowing the article to die. (Gosh, aren't I melodramatic today?) It's easy to tell the way the "consensus" decision will turn, though, so I might as well go away now. Anville 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to concede defeat. On the point about accuracy of the masses, this laughable point has been made by others on the article's talk page. I.e. it predicts the masses from first principles and gets to within great accutacy. This is more than any other prospective 'theory of everything' has done. Yet, though these other theories produces more inaccurate values using input data which Heim theory does not need, we do not strike off the Standard Model etc. So it is not a question of whether the predictions get exactly inside error bars, but of its accuracy relative to those other theories. --hughey 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this as civil as possible, please. ---CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the New Scientist article is more than enough verifiability for me. This theory exists and it has been discussed in mainstream scientific press. It may be that some of the assertions in the article constitute OR, but the article does not do so in its entirety. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As I feared, many voters seem to be ignoring a point I tried to make: these are not the only issues. The phenomenon in which the physics knowledgeable community is being driven out of Wikipedia by such endless and time consuming cruft control actions as this is, I maintain, a more serious problem, so much so that the wider Wikipedia community should at least consider sacrificing principle for the sake of expediency, at least until such time as much more efficient mechanisms are in place. ---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite - the theory has by now acquired enough media coverage to be a worthy encyclopedic topic. Which does not mean it's actually real science (Heim's work never properly published, written in obscure notation by a recluse; Heim's followers publish mostly in nonpeer-reviewed conference papers; article results are taken from webpages and discussion fora; etc. etc.). The article should be rewritten to make it more obvious that this is not a real physical theory at least until it is published and peer reviewed. Friendly Neighbour 11:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. The number of virgin acccounts and one-trick-pony accounts which appeared in this discussion makes me hesitate. The article will be really difficult to maintain against this flood. I change my vote to Weak Keep but Rewrite. Friendly Neighbour 09:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Addendum. I have a very hi regard for Friendly N. But his misgivings of the involvement of the new people is premature. Let's give ourselves the time to see what they do! I myself became involved in WP b/c of a deletion and stayed around and have enjoyed it immensely. It is a very worthwhile product, used by many people, free, and of surprisingly EXCELLENT quality (including HT article). Best Wishes. {{user|Will314159|| 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete - as noted, it is a worthy encyclopedic topic and deserves an article even if it were pure fantasy. If someone feels the need to rewrite it, that should be discussed at the article, and not through the deletion process. Whateley23 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it hasn't been peer reviewed, but the first I heard of this theory was in New Scientist, and they weren't just crapping on it. This isn't the author using WP to publish OR, it's the presentation of a theory which is generating discussion in the scientific world, and deserves an article. --Mnemeson 13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This theory is very old and the reference in New Scientist proves that is not a OR. The article can be rewritten but it is valid IMHO. ---AlexBrainer (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 September 2006

• Strong Delete The theory is, indeed, old (so what?), and yes, it has appeared in New Scientist, alongside perpetual motion machines, tinfoil hat manufacturers, and other bollocks. But it isn't peer-reviewed (being paranoid isn't an excuse), and it is grossly irresponsible for an encyclopaedia to in any way endorse this nonsense by including it. It definitely fails the policy on reliable sources, if nothing else, because most information on the theory comes from untrustworthy primary sources, and New Scientist has proven itself to be thoroughly unreliable as far as its quality standards are concerned. But ultimately, it should be deleted because it is thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific twaddle. Byrgenwulf 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong language - maybe you are violating the Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy - --192.171.3.126 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And if it really is "thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific twaddle" then it shouldn't be too hard to document this claim in the article, should it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Explaining that (and why) it is nonsense isn't the problem. The problem is keeping the article in a state which accurately portrays just how discredited the theory is: in an ideal world, it could be kept, but we all know how much maintenance and "looking after" these sorts of articles need. It could be lovely to have articles on all the different "theories" like this, and good solid sections explaining why they are no longer (or have never been) seriously pursued. But unfortunately, the policies in place here make it very difficult to carry articles like this without them being turned into platforms for promotion, as is well known. Byrgenwulf 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I rather doubt that. I created a "critique" section for Modern Galilian Relativity, that only required minimal maintenance, right up until that article's ill-advised deletion. Deletion is the lazy response, but it isn't the answer. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. I second what Byrgenwulf just said. The only "discussion" which Heim "theory" is "generating in the scientific world" involves how bad the pop-science magazines are. It provokes mournful sighs and shaking heads, and comments much resembling, "Was there ever a day when the media had standards?" None of these constitute a scientific response to the supposed theory itself, which only makes sense because the theory has vanishingly little content to which one can respond. It's Velikovsky for particle physics. I have lately come to the morose conclusion that NPOV for such subjects is impossible to achieve within the constraints placed upon Wikipedian editors; the next best thing is to toast this dreck in the napalm bath it deserves. Anville 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm undecided so far. For systematic reasons, I'd like to have separate (short) articles on far-off theories and their inventors, but experience has shown that the theory-articles have a tendency of uncontrolled growth by feeding from fans. The really worst case is, when the topic starts metastasizing, and adding an according to Heim theory in in article on real physics. Which unfortunately seems to be the case [15]. OK, most of the links result from Template:Theories of gravitation, which hopefully gets deleted soon. --Pjacobi 14:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a well known pseudoscientific theory which must be mentioned in any comprehensive encyclopedia. Wikipedia has articles about almost any subject ranging from Santa Claus to Superstring theory. Count Iblis 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Many crackpot theories get some coverage and this one seems to have had a marginal amount. If it is kept, the crackpotty nature of it needs to get more coverage in the article per WP:NPOV's undue weight and pseudoscience sections and the OR needs to be removed. I hope that the people above saying "keep" are willing to put the time and effort in to do this. JoshuaZ 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All other things being equal, I would agree with those who have said that Heim theory is notable as a fringe theory with a small but devoted following and whose originator has past connections with Nazi science. However, all other things are not equal. Currently, due to persistent POV-pushing by Heim theory fans, who are unable to accept that their pet "theory" is not taken seriously in mainstream physics (or even regarded as a recognizable theory of fundamental physics at all), this article requires constant intervention by the small number of trained physicists, who are thereby prevented from doing more useful work at Wikipedia, like adding new good content. That is, the Wikipedia community is not able to maintain this article in NPOV state at an acceptable cost to the community. That is why it should be deleted. If policies are put in place making it easier to curb POV-pushing in controversial articles, it can be reconstituted at a later date. ---CH 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One should first address these issues by placing POV tags and also OR tags. If these are reverted without properly changing the article then one should ask for mediation. Count Iblis 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you claim that “originator has past connections with Nazi science”? AFAIK, Heim's only “connection” is that he was of age (19yo) to be drafted during WWII, was drafted, worked in an explosives lab, and lost both hands in a lab accident. See the Wikipedia bio page at Burkhard Heim for details. That hardly makes him a Nazi. Most Germans of his age were drafted, and worked for the war effort. His theories were developed long after the war, in democratic Germany, and have nothing whatsoever to do with “Nazi” science. Your off-the-wall accusation is a prime case of Godwin's Law, only serving to create an emotional climate for deletion. And this from a scientist. Freederick 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to do that yourself for this article over the next year, say? If not, I don't think your comment takes account of that bit about "at an acceptable cost to the Wikipedia community". I rather feel that many well-intentioned Wikpedians who do not participate in WikiProject Physics are volunteering those of us who do for more of the time consuming work many of us are sick of, because it keeps us from creating new good content. I'd be much more impressed if they volunteered themselves. See what I mean? (No offense intended; I and others have just grown very frustrated by the failure of the wider community to acknowledge how much work we have done already in trying to follow ludicrously cumbersome Wikipedia procedures which arose years ago when this wiki was but a wee thing.)---CH 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This issue should have been raised first at the physics project page where we could have discussed new strategies on how to deal with this article. I'll get more involved with this article. My opinion is that this is a notable crackpot theory that must have a place on wikipedia. Because it's notable there are quite some vocal supporters. They come here to write about their theory because there is no better place for them to present their flawed ideas, i.e. in peer reviewed journals (although I would have though that journals like Physics Essays were created to get such theories published to appease the crackpots). There are only a few such notable crackpot theories, so I don't think this poses such a big problem for us. Count Iblis 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Iblis, you are not wrong about Physics Essays, but you'll have to ask the proponents of "Heim theory" [sic] (you've got some right here on this page, such as Hugh Deasy in the next vote) why they have not published there. FYI, I and others who came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics have often discussed what to do about this article, and this has been going on for about as long as WP Physics has existed, and if you look at the history, this article was a problem "from antiquity" (in Wikipedia, that means before Jan 2005 or so). Be this as it may, I am glad that you have agreed to take the article under your wing, and although I don't think you realize that you have let yourself in for, I consider you honor bound to follow through on your promise to help ensure that it respects WP:NPOV. Good luck, you'll need it! You may soon understand from my own experience just what I meant above by "at an acceptable cost to the Wikipedia community".---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how cranky Physics Essays were, but they seem to be history anyway. The journal webpage announces a forthcoming June 2005 (sic!) issue. Science Citation Index Expanded stopped indexing it wth the December 2002 issue. So maybe really Wikipedia is now the only outlet for physical ideas not fit for peer-review. Sigh. Friendly Neighbour 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

CH, l'll do my best! Also, we have to consider that wikipedia is evolving. The rules that every editor has to stick to are not set in stone. If the current procedures usually yield bad articles when the topic is some pseudoscientific subject, then that is an incentive to modify the procedures. If we just delete such bad articles then such modifications will not made and wikipedia will be unable to produce good articles on pseudoscientific topics.

OK, I'd be happy indeed if you can prove me wrong. Maybe should keep track of how much time you spend on this article over the next year? ---CH 04:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Neighbour, I think that Physics Essays does still exist. :) Count Iblis 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly but the fact that someone intends to submit a manuscript to the journal is definitely not a proof of its solvency. Friendly Neighbour 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, CH. Would you please explain what you are trying to say by '.. whose originator (Heim) has past connections with Nazi science ..' ? What were those connenctions ? What exactly are you referring to by the term 'Nazi science' ?

Do you claim that Heim was member of the Nazi Party ? Heim was born in 1925. The last free election in Germany before WW2 was in 1933, Heim was 8 years old then. When Heim reached the Age_of_majority in 1946, WW2 was already over.

When you refer to Nazi science, are you referring to Deutsche_Physik (an antisemitic and nationalistic group of idiots with degrees in physics, nevertheless denying relativity theory and quantum physics, trying to 'delete' Einstein and others from the history of science just because of their ancestry and religion) ? Thanks to the efforts of Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizsäcker and others, this group lost their influence in 1940. Heim was 15 years old then. By the way, the very same Weizsäcker later was Heim's teacher in Göttingen.

Or do you refer to the fact that Heim was contacted by Werner_Von_Braun (Rocket scientist of german ancestry, since 1937 member of Nazi Party, since 1940 member of SS, (ab)using prisoners from the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp as 'slave workers' in the production of the V-2_rocket; nevertheless later playing an quite important role in the NASA) ? Yes, i know that von Braun didnt exactly begged for joining the Nazi party, but others faced with a similar moral dilemma either left Germany or picked research topics which were less relevant for war ..

Or do you confuse him somehow with Pascual_Jordan, a physicist who was, to put it politely, blind enough to support that cranky 'Deutsche Physik', but nevertheless smart enough to find out a few things that are part of todays mainstream physics and mathematics ?

Could you please explain, maybe using Jordan as an example, why and how those completely unspecified, unsourced and unproven allegations of political and moral failure of Heim are of any relevance to Heim Theory and this nomination for deletion of the article about it ?

Looking forward to your answer .. - MillKa 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

MillKa, you seem to be objecting that you consider that my comment above was OT, but your response was to ask me a very long question which I suspect most here would consider far more OT than my own comment! (And would probably be answered by reviewing Burkhard Heim.) In addition, asking me a long and complicated question (which I only just noticed) in an AfD which seems about to close doesn't seem likely to guarantee a thoughtful response, so if you really want a response, I suggest that you cut and paste this exchange to your own user talk page. ---CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a very important theory. Look at the extensive discussion archives to see that this was tabled for deletion before the AIAA prize last year, New Scientist article etc. that signalled a renewal of interest. Thus it seems absurd to again suggest it should be deleted, so soon after it obtains a measure of recognition, where the charge had been that this was an unknown theory with no awards to its credit. And there have been peer reviewed papers on this, and more are forthcoming. As if Heim was some upstart crank. In the 1950s he was perceived as one of the top physicists. Von Braun was interested in the propulsion aspects, and in March 2006 Tajmar's breakthrough experiment, almost certain soon to be replicated at Berkeley and elsewhere, generated for the first time ever an artificial gravity field, the strength of which has been quantitatively calculated using Heim-Droscher theory. So the prejudice of the 'pure' physics community, that real advances can't come from the impure field of space propulsion studies, has been again shown to be just that – a prejudice – since Tajmar et al seem to have the first proof of quantum gravity, of which Heim Theory is an important form. So the idea that it is mere POV that retains the article is seen to be the POV of those who have shown bitterly negative thoughts w.r.t. the theory, as the involvement with the Tajmar breakthrough alone would be cause for retention - see discussion for other reasons to think that htis might be an important piece of physics. Its mass formula is not a work of fantasy but a careful piece of work from first principles that seems to succeed where other 'theories of everything' have failed in predicting particle masses. --hughey 20:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hdeasy (talk • contribs) probably should have mentioned that he publishes on this theory, which is regarded in physics as a fringe theory, and he has been the most ardent POV-pushing editor of the Wikipedia article. He mentions Tajmar; this work is also regarded with suspicion. If I had a penny for every time I've seen someone say "about to be replicated at Berkeley, CERN, whatever"... ---CH 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep Atricle makes clear in the first sentance that this is a non mainstream theory, so there is no risk of misleading the reader. It is the process of therotical physics that there will be many compeating theories, thats the way science happens. We will get a better understanding of the history of science if we document all sides not just the victor. --Salix alba (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It is clear from the content that this is not a mainstream theory. New data are being generated that will potentially confirm or refute Heim Theory. It is in the public interest to keep this entry in Wikipedia until confirmed or refuted.Dgietzen 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Welcome to Wikipedia Dgietzen (talk • contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The data contains merit if only to offer options of consideration or research. It seems reasonable to simply note that some of the ideas in this article are considered controversial. comment added by 23:47, 28 September 2006 Lefted (Talk | contribs)

Comment Welcome to Wikipedia Lefted (talk • contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, for CEREALX59 (talk • contribs) ---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep 1. mass forumla 2 thereotical explanation of Tajmar effect 3. practical promist of FLT 4 quantization of spacetime 5 quantum theory of gravity Best Wishes. Will314159 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep How many theories creating matter from space itself we have? --Ivica

Comment Welcome to Wikipedia 83.131.67.69 (talk • contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep The theory is notable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The theory seems to be notable enough and has sufficient enough merit to warrant its own article. I notice that a lot of the criticisms stem from NPOV issues. We should aim to bring neutrality to the article, deleting it isn't the answer and is not fair on those who genuinely want to contribute to the subject.--Auger Martel 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the theory isn't notable by any standard I can see, and it is easy to include it on the pages of the author. Having a separate page looks a lot like POV-forking to me and this page is riddled enough with inaccuracies to be better recategorized under the biography of the man. --ScienceApologist 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment See discussion page on B. Heim in the days when the theory was incorporated - we went through a long process to separate the man and his work - absurd to reverse the process. --hughey 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It isn't wikipedia's job to decide whether this theory is true, credible or even a theory. It exists. People know about it, people need information about it, therefore it should have an encyclopedia entry. Rewrite the entry to make its uncertain status more clear if you wish, but don't delete it. --shrink_laureate (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As mentioned before, Heim Theory has made very accurate predictions with the mass formula and offers an explanation of the Tajmar effect. Also, the recent discovery of artificial gravitational forces from em fields may give this theory more support. Also, the fact that a theory is not mainstream is not highly relevant. Just as an example, at one point in our history, mainstream science said that the Sun orbited the Earth. --User:djrosenau 00:48 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Welcome to Wikipedia djrosenau (talk • contribs). --Friendly Neighbour 06:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a high-quality article; I used this article as a starting point to do my own research on the theory. Removing this article would be a disservice to the Internet community. I feel dismayed that people feel that we should remove articles that are not mainstream. When someone says the theory is "not notable by any standard", who are they to tell me if something is notable? I personally feel that the predictions of particle masses are substantially more than anything string theory has given us, for example. If Copernicus existed in the 21st century, would his theory page on Wikipedia be listed for deletion because it was outside the mainstream thinking, and "riddled with inaccuracies"? Digizen 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Besides what has been said already...: Heim theory cannot be accepted science at the moment since the publications haven't been translated from German into English yet. It is not a coincidence that the Tajmar experiments that fulfill a prediction of Heim theory were done in Austria. Heim theory is certainly in its very early stages, and its acceptance (if it happens) would take years, but that doesn't make it bad science. At any rate, it isn't worse than String theory! String theory only has more followers and more publications, but no testable predictions, no established body of theory, nothing. So before Heim theory goes, String theory should (and we know it won't because it has so many believers). Heim theory will only receive the full scrutiny it deserves once it is available in English. It is just too early to tell.Denial 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The point is not whether the theory itself has merit; possibly or even probably it doesn't. But one of the glories of Wikipedia is that it is a place where one can find information about an extremely broad range of things. (And often high quality information at that.) This article makes it clear in the lead that the theory is not mainstream and has not been published in peer reviews journals, so it's not like it tries to mislead the reader. The theory itself exists, is being discussed (googling "Heim theory" gets you about 20,000 hits), and many a reader may come to Wikipedia looking for information about it. To delete this article would make Wikipedia a poorer source for information. Dianelos 16:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please Keep. There has been a sufficient amount of recent work in this area to justify a stay of execution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.192.200.2 (talk • contribs). (geoloc. near Barcelona)

• Strong Keep. This is incredible, we are in XXI century and people yet now are interested to delete the ideas of some others. What is an encyclopedia?, a collection of ideas or the description of “real” world. We have the opportunity to create the new Alexandria Bibliotheque, please don’t burn it again. If some one are not interested in the theory, don’t worry, don’t read it, may be some other can extract an interesting idea for the “mainstream” theories. Best regards. Vilvi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.123.10.81 (talk • contribs). (geoloc. near Tampico, Mexico)

• Keep. It's a well-known (within certain circles) pseudo-theory. Just because the theory is/may be wrong doesn't mean it can't be documented in a history-of-science sense. We document, for example, geocentrism or the luminiferous aether, don't we?--67.101.67.122 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (geoloc near Houston, TX)

• General comment: I hesitate to mention this, but after mulling it over for a few days, I wish to add a plea to the closing admin (probably unneccessary, but I want to try to make sure) to make a special effort to check for possible sockpuppetry while tallying the votes in this AfD. Several of the registered user accounts are single use accounts, or very nearly. Please note that while slightly refactoring to disambig votes &c. I uncovered a possibly legitimate "keep" vote from an anon who didn't wikisign, so that his comment appeared to run into the next vote, from another anon.---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment : CH probably should have mentioned that he has been one of the most ardent opponents of the Wikipedia article. See the discussion archives. Whatever motivations cause such passionate opposition may have other causes than pure 'decency'. Note that some fans of string theory may feel threatened by Heim. I only mention this as CH added a similar comment on me and I was not about to turn the other cheek :-). --hughey 10:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Hughey, I am neutral regarding string theory; it is easy to check that I have had very little to say in public about it (and not much more in private). You are probably correct that I should have clearly stated in my comment that I have interacted with you here on previous occasions. For the record, I believe that my edit history amply establishes that I have always acted in good faith in the Wikipedia (and elsewhere). ---CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• General Comment. I have a B.S. in Physics from a fairly prominent university. Bryce Dewitt taught there for a few year as well as other prominent physiscts. No, no Einsteins, Feynmans, but I did meet Dirac once. I made A's in my Physics and math courses. Can I follow Heim equations all the way? No. I can't follow Loop Quantum Gravity all the way either. But I get the big picture. They're both background independent (I often get this part reversed) implementations of quantized spacetime. they both result in what i would call "artifice" matter. That is matter arising as an oscillation of spacetime and they both lead to a mass formula. LQG has a very strong following and is well published is rigourous mathematically and peer reviewed. HT is none of those things, obscure, but predates LQG and has an Achilles heel of no quarks although it accounts for some shadow quark behavior. Extended HT is very interesting as it predicts faster than light travel. I am not putting the mathematical development, the participation, or the peer review of HT on a par with LQG- just pointing out core similarities. Some critics such as Friendly Neighbour while skeptical have contributed greatly to improving the article. Others use epithets such as "crank" and so forth and are destructive and non-constructive. Best Wishes Will314159 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Byrgenwulf, a minor crank theory which does not merit an article of its own and certainly isn't worth wasting time over as noted by CH's comments. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable pseudoscience. I agree that the closing admin needs to be vigilant in rooting out sockpuppets. dryguy 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I find offense in this talk about sockpuppets. There are a significant majority of comments signed by legit users; many, like myself, have been involved in the topic for months or more; I have not noticed any comments from you in the discussion. Are you a sockpuppet? Freederick 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep: As far as i understand, the three relevant WP rules for this AfD nomination are found here: WP:SR

• WP:V aka Verifiability / Publication in a peer-reviewed journal
• WP:OR aka No original research
• WP:NPOV aka Neutral point of view

On WP:V and WP:OR:

User:Sdedeo claims that Heim Theory (HT) has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. This claim is wrong.

Heim published his Theory in 1977 on pages 233-243 of Vol 32a of the 'Zeitschrift für Naturforschung' (= Journal of Nature Science) under the title 'Vorschlag eines Weges einer einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen' (= Suggestion of a way of a unified description of elementary particles). Unfortunately, that journals online archive only reaches back to 1997, so this article is not available online.

At that time (1977), the 'Zeitschrift für Naturforschung' was the journal of the Max_Planck_Society (kindly check the WP article for the relevance of that research organization).

Heim wrote his article on initiative and persuasion of Hans-Peter_Dürr (kindly check the WP article for the relevance of Dürr and his knowledge about physics in general and elementary particles, gravitation and quantum physics in particular).

I would agree that more than one peer-reviewed publication would have been nice, but Heim was notoriously known of his reluctance to publish and always preferred to investigate matter(s) even further.

On WP:NPOV:

I am glad that Sdedeo agrees that the HT article already tries to be NPOV, right from its very first sentence. If some Wikipedians think the article needs more improvement, lets discuss it, section by section - instead of nuking the whole article out of WP. I already made several suggestions for improvment on the articles TalkPage.

Some general thoughts::

Every now and then, some popular science journal writes about HT or other theories (e.g. LQG). The latest journal publication i know of was the New Scientist article in February 2006 (i am aware that some consider New Scientists reputation as debatable - nevertheless many people read it). I think many readers of such articles, most of them interested laymen, turn to WP to check for the current state of affairs and further information to form their own decision and judgement about those theories. In my humble opinion, its our duty as WP editors to provide this information as NPOV as possible and let them decide what they want to believe and think.

Articles about scientific theories should clearly explain, where the theory is in sync with mainstream science and experimental results, and where it deviates. They should explain what a theory claims and what it doesnt claim (e.g. HT does not claim existence of neutral electrons - check the archived talk pages for my post showing that this wrong claim results from translation errors).

If the HT article is deleted, WP throws away the opportunity to inform the reader that HT is not mainstream physics and to explain why.

MillKa 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The article is a well-thought out and informative article on a topic which has drawn interest and media coverage. Even if the theory eventually turns out to be wrong, it deserves an entry in Wikipedia. No, it has not been peer-reviewed: but the page makes it clear. There have been scientific publications, and an award by a reputable agency. There are bona-fide physicists involved. The theory makes falsifiable predictions, which makes it science, regardless of the outcome. The outcome is not yet known; but that makes it no different from String Theory, or other current fads in physics. The page is not written by a crank pushing his own idee fixe, but by an informed and concerned group of editors. There is considerable interest in the topic, and it belongs in an encyclopedia. I have taken part in the discussion on the talk page and have seen the page evolve in a heated exchange of views. This attempt at deletion, coming after so many people have put so much work in a legitimate topic, goes against all that Wikipedia stands for; it is a thinly disguised attempt at censorship. Freederick 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• General Comment. When the New Scientist article came out in January 2006, it referred to the Wikipedia article on Heim-Theory. Also, in Wikinews, when Heim made the top headline, where did they point? Right, this article sitting on death row. There will be one or two peer reviewed articles from Droscher and maybe others next year that may cause similar media interest. It would be ludicrous if the WP source of info on Heim had suffered capital punishment at that stage.--hughey 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It's very heartening to see this great interest in Physics both by HT pro and con. Initially, HT occupied the field of quantized space time alone. It is an old theory. I believe it predates quarks. In HT, matter arises as ocillations in the metron lattice of quantized space-time. But now LQG has a similar concept, but at a more fundamental sub-quark level. See Preons. Barkeep: Wiskis for the Editors and Beer for the Horses. Will314159 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

I already voted above.

The article already mentioned the first publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal in 1977, but didnt give details where to find that publication. Since WP:V (Verifiability) requires these details, i just added them to the article (in section Heim_theory#Further_reading).

I assume we can all agree that there are quite different opinions whether Heim Theory is true or false. Therefore i would like to remind that WP:V states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..

As far as i understood Karl_Popper, absolute truth only exists in mathematics - in nature sciences the next best thing is current state of knowledge, which in science history has been a (sometimes pretty fast, but not superluminal) moving target ..

Yes, i am aware of the 100 StdDevs error of the HT mass formula. However i cant exclude, that reverse engineering might find a biggest blunder ..

MillKa 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The StdDev objection is bunk. Standard Deviation is a criterion for random statistical error; the discrepancy in mass formula result is systematic: all the results are off by the same percentage in the same direction. Thus if you were to change the value of, say, the gravitational constant G slightly, you would get “on-the-spot” results. The catch? The value of G is only known to about 0.001 accuracy, so its anybody's guess what exactly should be plugged in. Therefore the “100 SD” argument against Heim Theory is invalid, unless the discrepancies were different for different masses, which is not the case. Freederick 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Freederick: I fear the StdDev objection is valid. Adjusting G would severly disturb the general Feng Shui of the Universe (or even the Multiverse - or is it Multiverses ?) ;-P

However, as you correctly point out, the errors look quite systematic. The interesting question is whether it is possible to apply a corresponding systematic modification to the mass formula so that it delivers better or even exact results. Then the even more interesting next question would be: Whats the physical meaning of that nifty math trick ? I have severe problems to understand why so many physicists consider that question as completely unworthy to investigate. Since a correct HT-type mass formula would drastically lower the number of universal constants, even the most stringent stringists should be interested, cause it might help them to fight the recent Not_even_wrong debate by Lee_Smolin and Peter_Woit.

Which is by the way a major reason why in my humble opinion the HT article should stay: Unsolved problems should be attacked from all sides, instead of just the familiar or promising looking ones. MillKa 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

@Milka. What is Truth? The only reason that it can be said of Math is because it is a giant Tautology and a shell game. Will314159 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: It's hard for me to understand why the article should be deleted. Everybody at least a bit open minded should be able to see the difference between nonesense and Heim's work. Even if somebody is not willing to accept the theory, somebody else might - and for theses other people the information present in Wikipedia might be valuable. Also there is quite a lot of material available, just not in english right now (what hopefully changes over time), so just because there are little english information available, doesn't make the whole theory wrong or nonesense. And how should any theory get accepted if these kind of discussions mislead potential interested people in thinking this theory is (non-science or whatever ever words have been found for it). After all it's theoretical physics and nobody is able to judge something like Heims theory by a quick glance over it. So please keep the article as it would be a shame to have all the work of the article's authors be destroyed. --Mvuori 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mvuori (talk • contribs)! --Pjacobi 17:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: people are quick to call "pseudoscience", but I haven't seen a detailed discussion of objections to HT, anywhere. Those of you who vote delete, please provide a link to one. It is kind of frustrating that outside of long threads on physics forums (which I frankly don't understand) and Slashdot (which isn't informative), everything available on the subject on the web is in German. How are any of us to make an informed decision?

21:02, 2 October 2006 139.18.193.36 (talk • contribs) ID's by Will314159 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I am a school student doing a major project on Heim theory and the wikipedia page has provided countless help in my endeavours. It is quite absurb that anyone could find a reason to delete a site which has been so much use to the public and will still provide useful information in the future. "

by 21:53, 2 October 2006) 202.77.82.55 (talk • contribs) " ID by Will314159 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning to closing admin: this vote appears to duplicate (possibly unintentionally) a previous vote by same user above; look for "1. mass forumla 2 thereotical explanation of Tajmar effect 3. practical promist of FLT 4 quantization of spacetime 5 quantum theory of gravity Best Wishes." And Will314159, you can wikisign your comments/votes in AfDs simply by typing four tildes ~~~~. HTH ---CH 03:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin and CH: If you check the history, you will see that User:Will314159 just added the IP adresses to the two anonymous votes above starting with 'People are quick ..' and 'I am a school student ..'. MillKa 05:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, this was confusing and I was duly confused. On an AfD very light refactoring for readability (or in this case, to wiksign voters who didn't know how or forgot to sign their votes) is generally held to be acceptable, so it might not be neccessary to sign refactoring which is clearly well-intentioned, but next time, Will, you might try "{{user|202.77.82.55}} (signature added after the fact by ~~~~)". Note to closing admin: my concern about several user accounts noted by PJacobi and myself above stands. Several of these are new accounts with only edit (their "keep" vote in this AfD) on record, which tends to raise suspicions of sockpuppetry.---CH 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. I went to the history page. Put the IP's of the people that didn't sign and then put ID'd by Will314159. Isn't that pretty clear. ID is short for Identifed. Sorry. I thought it was clear as glass but maybe it was as clear as mud. Not to worry CH. I would think with an overwhelming lopsided vote such as this- not to worry. Best Wishes and Take Care. Wikis for Everybody --Will^(talk) 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The MO for this is to simply label them {{Unsigned|202.77.82.55}}, which turns into this: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.77.82.55 (talk • contribs). ~ trialsanderrors 09:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how you did that exposition triananderros <nowiki>{{Unsigned|202.77.82.55}}</nowiki>. Learned about another device. Thanks. Best Wishes. User:Will314159 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider wikisigning anons as {{user|202.77.82.55}} and so on, especially in an AfD where concerns about possible multiple voting have been mentioned, because this makes it easier to conveniently check contribs. ----CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I am not a physicist. I am a mathematician and I have no opinion whether this theory corresponds to the physical reality or not. But regardless of that this is a theory and as such it deserves its article in Wikipedia. By the way, reading these comments, I am happy that I am not a phycycist - qualifications such as pseudoscience make me really angry. In mathematics we also have alternative theories - even theories that deny almost everything you know about the mathematics (Intuitionism, Constructivism). But we don't use the words science and pseudoscience, instead we are talking about classical mathematics and non-classical mathematics. --Zinoviev 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideas still exist which can only be termed pseudomathematics. Crank schemes for squaring the circle spring to mind; I could provide many more examples. Before Andrew Wiles, we had a deluge of purported Fermat proofs. Heim theory is, according to what mainstream scientific judgment has been said, the equivalent of these pseudomathematical notions. The overbearing weight of evidence indicates that this "theory" does not and indeed cannot correspond to physical reality. That's not the question. Per Wikipedia policies and community practice, articles on "theories" which completely diverge from physical reality can still exist, if those "theories" and the articles written on them satisfy certain requirements. Arguably, Heim theory does (it has attracted a certain amount of media attention); arguably, it does not, or at least the current article should be abandoned (to satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR and other policies). Anville 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lucky, you. We have to test our theories on the boring real world. Friendly Neighbour 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heims theory seems to be distinctly different from the Crank's which appear in mathematics. Mathematical cranks generally make obvious errors in their working, exploit tricks, like dividing 0 by 0, or do a lot of handwaving, missing out important details in their theories. Heim from what I can tell has not committed these sins, unstead he developed his own mathematical framework, worked very hard developing the theory. Heim seems to have more the character of Adrian Wiles who worked for years before publishing that that of the cranks who tend to do a mimimum of work spending all their time rating about their theory. Maths Grad student are frequently set the task of finding flaws in crank's theories, yet for heim we have post-grads busilly translating his work. I'm not sure how to describe Heim, excentric/recluse, but chrank he is not. --Salix alba (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... Andrew Wiles? If so, the comparison is laughablle. First, Wiles is no crank and no-one has ever suggested that he is a crank. (Except maybe James S. Harris and Archimedes Plutonium, but their opinion may be safely discounted!) Second, Wiles was already acknowledged as a leader in his field well before his work on FLT. Third, he was teaching and attending to various departmental duties (at one of the most prestigious math departments in the world, be it noted) just like other faculty members. Even spending regular blocks of time working hard by oneself in the attic is rather normative for research mathematicians. What is highly unusual about Wiles's labors is that he told very few colleagues what he was doing for many years, and of course the epochal nature of his results. (OT: I continue to be surprised that no-one seems to challenge the "secrecy" which is part of the Wiles legend; I recall hearing highly credible rumors in 1990 that he was working on FLT and making remarkable progress.)---CH 04:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: I just wrote 200 words and lost it when I hit a key by mistake. So I will make only two comments. Some of the contributors to this discussion have adopted a snide, put-down tone when discussing the arguments/thinking of other contributors. This is not consistent with the principles and ideals that have led to the creation of Wikipedia. As/if this continues, we risk having the Wikipedia form overwhelmed by pointless debates among individuals stroking their egos or private agendas. Generally, in this discusion, one finds this snide voice predominationg among those proposing deletion. Second, discussions of Heim theory would profit if a first-class theorist familiar with general relativity, German, English, perhaps a student in Germany when Heim was still fairly active in the 1960s took an interest. Sounds like Julian Barbour, Oxfordshire, who also consorts with LQG theorists such as Smolin. Now is he ready, willing, interested, or even a companion among the quick in having his imagination tweaked by a stray concept?

Oh, and since anonymity seems to promote human nastiness, my name is Hal Porter... for what it's worth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halporter (talk • contribs) .

Comment Welcome to Wikipedia Dgietzen (talk • contribs). --Friendly Neighbour 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How very welcoming of the friendly one - now be a fine friendly fellow and admit ignominious defeat on the part of the dark side of the force, and kindly remove the deathstar deletion notice - the 5 day period is long since over and Darth Vader has failed to rally his deleters here in sufficient numbers :-). --hughey 07:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you adressing me? If so, what kind of defeat am I supposed to admit? I actually voted to keep Heim theory which is not too difficult to check. Do you mean we decided to delete it??? Friendly Neighbour 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Opps - sorry... I just assumed you were against. Now, looking back I see you have a 'keep but rewrite'. mea culpa! --hughey 08:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You just assumed I voted against? That is exactly why a scientist should check his/her facts wherever possible :-) But of course, I accept the apology. Friendly Neighbour 10:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Friendly may be skeptical of HT but he has made extremely fruitful and critical edits to the article. He has a first rate mind and it is a privilige for WP ians to have him as an Editor. Take Care. User:Will314159 12:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If I might try to clarify something: I think FN's point was that several voters here appear to have no other edits (or virtually none) to their credit, which given the highly partisan tone of some of the comments here raises the question of sockpuppets being used to try to affect the outcome of this AfD. This would of course be very greatly frowned upon. These newborn voters include:

• Dgietzen (talk • contribs)
• Lefted (talk • contribs)
• CEREALX59 (talk • contribs) (apparently tried to vote in his edit summary)
• djrosenau (talk • contribs)
• Mvuori (talk • contribs)
• Halporter (talk • contribs) (this user provided some IRL identification after being challenged above, so the closing admin can decide what to do with his vote).

I have some qualms about a few of the others who almost seem to be socks created just to vote in various AfDs. I also did a spot check of some anon votes, and am glad to say that I found no clear pattern suggesting that someone was multiply voting as an anon. But I remain concerned about the above noted votes. So, it seems, do several other users. ---CH 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. New WP'ians might not be familiar with the term Sockpuppet. An even worse insult is meat sockpuppet. To see illustration of sockpuppet go to youtube.com and do a search for lonelygir15. She has several video clips where she puts her puppet on her hand and talks to it. I would recommend to CH, that adage of jurisprudence: Editors are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Best Wishes. Will314159 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep--Lucinos 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep and rewrite. Wikipedia is NOT a scientific magazine. We're not bound to cover only scientifically accurate things, but notable things, and Heim theory certainly is notable. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 01:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I came to this article because I saw mention of it elsewhere and decided to look it up on wiki. This article told me almost everything I could have wanted to know. While the article is guilty of minor NPOV violations (It certainly needs a criticism section), the fact is that it's an example of Wikipedia doing what it's designed to do - providing fairly accurate about something, even if that something is a load of crap.Fdgfds 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another general comment: this page makes utterly chaotic reading, in part because many commentators randomly inserted comments somewhere after a bulleted item, which means that earlier comments appear further down and suddenly become almost impossible to undertand because it is no longer clear what they were referring to in the above. I would like to see a a thoroughly revised AfD process, but there seems no chance of that. Barring this, I would like to see revised guidelines for the format of AfD pages, but there seems little chance of even this. It's really absurd that some of us had to do to try to clarify who said what above by wikisigning would-be voters after the fact, calling attention to single use accounts which were very possibly created only to vote in this AfD, etc. I'd like to see automatic wikisigning of comments in talk pages, or at least AfD pages, but again there seems little chance of this happening.---CH 04:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Am intrigued by the "church of science" aspect of the deletion proponents. They seem to be arguing that this theory should not be documented as it is crackpot science and heresy. Whether it is crackpot or not it is obviously something that has a significant history and has sustained the interest and research of a number of people and is thus worthy of documentation in an encyclopedia. Oska 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and add pseudoscience category LHOON 13:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Whether this theory is a correct description of physical reality or not, it needs to be documented. If you don't document failed theories, you can't learn from them. Wittyname 17:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This page documents a theory that, correct or otherwise, may be of interest to users of wikipedia. Joshuag 19:16, 6 October 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 consensus was to not keep this article, I'm redirecting so people can merge more easilly if they want. W.marsh 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Allen's house

Paul Allen's house? I don't see how it is notable. It's simply a very large house, but it isn't very uncommon for rich people to have one. I believe that, unless it is proven that this house holds significant value in some way, perhaps architectural, it does not need to be here. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There doesn't seem to be anything special about the house. TJ Spyke 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there's nothing special in the article. The house might be notable but the article does not assert why. - Richardcavell 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this article. I was doing research on Bill Gates and Paul Allen and found this interesting. I think with a billionaire it might be interesting when reading about them to see how they live.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.78.15 (talk • contribs).
  • What makes this house notable though? There are hundreds of billionaires, should they all have articles about the houses they live in just because they are rich? TJ Spyke 06:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Be VERY careful with this line of thought, Anonymous. Go read WP:BLP. Billionaires tend to be a bit defensive of their privacy... --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pure nonsense. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 07:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bill's house has had press coverage. It hadn't occurred me until this moment that Paul had a house. Gazpacho 09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Moreschi 10:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Paul Allen as the information in it could fit there, then delete Mister.Manticore
• Delete its not verifiable. T REX_speak 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that is not true. It's certainly possible to verify someone's residence, heck there are links to official local gov't websites for some of the details. Why do you claim it's not? Mister.Manticore 03:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that it is unverified now. Not that it can't be, bad choice of words on my part. T REX_speak 21:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the Paul Allen article. This does not deserve to stand alone.- Triviaa 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge just a line or two about the house into Paul Allen, ditch the map and tax records. This smells like wikistalking. --Dhartung | Talk 12:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to his own article, merging anything worth keeping. No assertion is made as to why this paticular pile of bricks is more noteworthy than any other. Article is disappointingly brief - mention is made of "a made-to-order grotto", yet it is not stated whether Mr Allen dresses as Santa every year or whether he got stubble-rash from the false whiskers and had to give it up. QuagmireDog 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge -- with Paul Allen before it sets a precedent. - Longhair\^talk 13:59, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal music/temp

see the edit summary rmving my "merge" request from Heavy metal. Pages have already been merged. Am doubting anyone has sufficient claim to move this to their user space. As it stands, it attracts new edits. Does not belong in main space. Ling.Nut 06:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If someone wants to userfy this that would be fine, but as a subpage off a main article space this is pointless. I'm not even sure why the originator created this... though as he has not been active in nearly a year I guess he is not around to ask.--Isotope23 15:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When there is a long article on Heavy metal music, what's the point in keeping this. --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. WesleyDodds 02:52, 2 October 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 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Gewirtz

nn WWE writer, fails WP:BIO, assertion of notability is suspect, gets 223 unique google hits Giant onehead 06:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Will the just added IMDb listing satisfy notability? --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete he's not notable (IMDb lists everyone invelved with film, not just notable people), he hasn't won any awards, and there's barely any useful info in the article at all (the bit about him being a comic book fan complises around 20% of the article). I can't find a biography anywhere. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable writer for a notable tv show. I presume tv script writers aren't notable unless in the exceptional case and this isn't exceptional. MLA 11:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 05:33, 28 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. Ben W Bell talk 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal drugs

This entire article is a POV rant soapbox conspiracy exercise initiated by an author who is meeting opposition elsewhere on Wikipedia to putting forward his pro-drug/anti-US POV edits to articles. Ben W Bell talk 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete information is already covered by other articles. Arbusto 07:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• The "opposition elsewhere on Wikipedia" is an exaggeration of a campaign directed by Ben W Bell (who also likes to say "every historian in the world concurs with my POV" and ad populums like those), for putting forward his anti-certain-drugs/pro-US POV edits to articles. The soapboxers are prohibitionists trying to defend naive propaganda such as that saying "alcohol is not a drug". These people are taking credibility and editability out from Wikipedia and back to main-stream Republican Conservative POVs Drcaldev 09:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete bizarre soapboxing. Gazpacho 09:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Badly written, entirely un-sourced and so POV it hurts. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete before anyone sees it. It might also be noted that Drcaldev is the creator and sole maintainer of the article in question. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V.-- danntm ^T _C 14:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a place to publish your opinions, a publisher of original thought. -- IslaySolomon 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete POV? You're soaking in it. Wildthing61476 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hopelessly POV. ---Charles 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic POV soapboxing. -- Necrothesp 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per everyone above and end debate now per WP:SNOW. --Aaron 16:14, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastian Chow

Seemingly non-notable musician. Article was already deleted once before. Article was created by K1w1k1d (talk • contribs), whose only contributions are related to Sebastian Chow, so I suspect this is a vanity article. More information was added by User:67.68.251.28, as his only contribution ever. 67.68.215.28 may or may not be the same person as K1w1k1d, or Sebastian Chow. If he's not, then it might be an attempt at a personal attack, as the information seems fairly hard to believe - elected to the city council at age 14? Delete unless notability can be established and verified. JIP | Talk 07:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nomination. Cordless Larry 09:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Vanity always makes me laugh delete - per nom. Moreschi 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ciao Chow. PJM 11:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. -- MarcoTolo 00:23, 28 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 Speedy delete made of vegetables. Glen 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

copied to BJAODR beforehard :)

[edit] House Made out of Vegetables

Clearly a hoax. Among other things, the picture appears to be fairly recent (notice the bag of potato chips), but the article says the house was destroyed in 1969. It also says Adolf Hitler lived in Los Angeles in this house. I would support a move to WP:BJAODN. Tinlinkin 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Big Bad Wolf Deletes The House Down. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Laughing delete - aren't they the best?. The bit about Hitler is just fantastic. Even if not a hoax, non-notable anyway. Moreschi 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Turnip truck drivers really should mind the speed bumps when passing through here. PJM 11:29, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ginger Cookie

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang (as per User:Anthony.bradbury). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- no sources or references on usage available, which leads me to think this is nothing more than something made up amongst a group of friends. -- Longhair\^talk 08:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and as per WP:NFT. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. PJM 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, with optional recreate as redirect to Ginger snap. -- Fan-1967 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - ditto. --Strait 05:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ginger snap proposed by Fan-1967. Yamaguchi先生 22:37, 29 September 2006
• Delete and redirect, unverifiable. MaxSem 17:04, 1 October 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 08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backseatkiss

This article fails WP:WEB. Alexa's rank is 800,000+. None of the 86 unique search results augments notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 08:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Moreschi 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 11:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Germanism

Starting discussion for new user White Guard, who was unsure what to do after finding the previous (incorrect) nomination of the same name. His/her reasons for deletion given on the talk page were:

"I do not understand the purpose of this article, or in what manner it contributes to an understanding of racism. In the examples given hostility towards the Germans was born out of the specific circumstances of World War II, and was not historically transcendental. It was also directed towards the German state of the time, no similar hostility being directed towards Swiss Germans. Stalin's ethnic purges, moreover, embraced all suspect national minorities, including the Crimean Tartars, and not just the Volga Germans (who, incidentally, could NOT speak German in the standard sense). The mass relocation of German citizens in 1945 was part of a political process arising from Yalta, and not the result of 'anti-Germanism'. This entry is thus in violation of every encyclopedic concept." JPD (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced. The concept is a POV, but could be discussed in a NPOV manner if it is the view has serious prominence. I don't know enough to judge whether this POV is worth covering. I suspect not and at the moment there are no sources at all to support keeping it or to clean it up. JPD (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the entire article is covered by the (considerably larger) article Anti-German sentiment, which also seems quite pointless (why aren't there articles for anti-british sentiment or anti-polish sentiment?). If we don't want to delete it, then merge whatever's useful with Anti-German sentiment. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Moreschi 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have Anti-German sentiment. PJM 11:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 14:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. RickReinckens 03:17, 28 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 the lulz. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOLZ

Non notable film. ChinaNailStorm 09:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's not even on IMDb Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This page is pretty useless. It doesn't even have info about the plot. I don't really see how it can be fixed. Hmrox 12:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• De1337 Hoax/Made up in school one day/Non-notable. -- IslaySolomon 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• OMGWTFDELETE Silly, but not for real. Wildthing61476 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Deletz. Not notable by a long shot. ... discospinster _talk 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to LOL (Internet slang). —Scott5114↗ 17:38, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychotic Wrestling Alliance

Non-notable "e-federation" (that's a play-by-post online pro-wrestling role playing game where people pretend to be wrestlers). Englishrose 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The site is nothing but a forum with 400 google hits. The article is has no information useful to anyone but a member of the "PWA", and it can therefore be moved to their own site. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 11:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete We've already established that individual e-feds are NOT notable, and every article about one has been deleted for this reason. TJ Spyke 20:14, 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 Speedy Deleted by RexNL (Article about a person, group of people or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)) - Yomangani^talk 12:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fish tank clan

nn Counterstrike clan; not notable outside of the game and not even particularly notable amongst the (admittedly signifiant) Counterstrike community Batmanand | Talk 10:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. who is to say exactly what is notable and what isnt? You go around as though you were god going that is notable, nope sorry that isnt notable. Notability is all in the eyes of the beholder as it were and there are a great many people who consider this clan notable. Do not speak of that of which you are unaware. Saatana 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment. ok I am sorry but I saw you're comment on how [FT] isn't significant inside or outside the counterstrike community and on this you are just wrong. [FT] IS significant inside the counterstrike community because we have been around for longer than something like 97% of all gaming clans. Also, it is our original server FTC2 that the <DAWG> clan was a major part of. Also [FT] servers are not only places to play counterstrike but also are places to chill with friends and have a good time. Saatana 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:WEB. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. CSD A7--Andeh 11:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breadboard BI

Fails WP:WEB and is vanity page (creator is CEO). 220 Google hits and 1,220,974 Alexa ranking ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP, too. -- MarcoTolo 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GregorB 15:56, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Town Traffic Test

Speedied once but re-created so I assume the author contests deletion. "Town Traffic Test" scores the coveted zero google hits. Looks like the start of an original research article. Guy 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As the person that initially speedied it, I don't see an use for this article and it seems like original research to me as well.--Thomas.macmillan 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I am a newbie, but I am also very passionate about helping low-income countries with their transport problems. There is an enormous lack of information available for the 66% of people who live in cities of less than 3 million. The big cities such as Cairo and Bangkok have the opposite problems of too much study.

I would like, therefore, to collect the existing knowledge in a structured way. Wiki is, I think, a perfect place for this, though I am open to other suggestions, because I would also like to create a method in which users can evaluate their own cities and put the results online for others to compare with. Geoff Gardner (13 years of experience working in this area and with a Masters Degree by research including 145 references that I can bring to this table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwgardner (talk • contribs).

• Delete per nom. Jwgardner (please sign your posts on talk pages), this is simply too esoteric a subject to merit an article. Unless individually notable, single-source articles generally have little merit and may exhibit bias and other problems. Your idea sounds interesting but would fall under original research, so we could not publish those evaluations. Look into starting your own Wiki for this under your own policies. --Dhartung | Talk 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Could this be userfied? (moved to User: Jwgardner/Town Traffic Test instead of deleted) TransUtopian 22:39, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Timberlane (Canada)

It's not being maintained. It's a mess of an article right now; very hard to read. Somewhat of an advertisement. PROD removed by anon without explanation. -- Chris chat edits essays 11:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Húsönd 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Like schools, I see inherent notability in a place with real geography and attendance. Does need a clean up.Obina 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Summer camp with no assertation of importance of regional or greater importance. Atricle says nothing more than "We are a summer camp. We have a summer camp attendance every summer. We do summer camp things". Am also uncertain about the external verifiability of the information through the use of third party sources (i.e. something other than the camp's website and the personal recollections of the campers/counselors). -- saberwyn 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A summer camp joy. Hundreds of those around unless someone can show why this one is different delete the article. Whispering^(talk/c) 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and saberwyn. The local parish church or corner Starbucks are also places with real geography and attendance, but neither place (usually) merits an article. Agent 86 22:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, importance, or encyclopedic value in comparison to other summer camps. No use of independent reliable sources to make us believe that an article adhering to the core policies can be written. GRBerry 20:34, 29 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: Speedily deleted by Syrthiss. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven benbow

This is your standard "author-removed CSD" case, which people more wedded to process than I have deemed "a controversial deletion" (I would argue that the author of a rogue article who removes the CSD and does little to show why it was erroneous is continuing their fun, rather than engaging in controversy). An anonymous editor who may well be the original author has announced that this is all factual on the article's talk page. Suffice it to say that it patently is not. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, complete nonsense. (letting off a little steam in the nom there, BigHaz?) Yomangani^talk 12:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• No remotely plausible claim of notability, borderline patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. Removal of deletion notice or other contesting of the deletion is only relevant in case of proposed deletion, so I am re-adding it. - Mike Rosoft 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, please. ~ PseudoSudo 12:15, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Peace Institute

And its subpages: International Creed for Peace, Peace Conservation System, and Universal Peace Protocol; also Chika Sylva-Olejeme (founder).

• I have tried looking on the Internet for this group, and found 624 Google hits for "International Peace Institute", most of which seem to be irrelevant. The article gives no references, and only achievements it lists are that the group "engages in independent projects usally based on international cooperation and children", and has created the "International Creed for Peace", the "Peace Conservation System", and the "Universal Peace Protocol" (the latter two seem to be collections of rather trivial statements, and neither article gives any mention of influence of these documents). Unless evidence of notability is provided, delete all, and remove its mention from Peace and any other articles. - Mike Rosoft 12:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not exactly correct, see Interreligious and International Federation For World Peace (IIFWP ...Chika Sylva-Olejeme President of the International Peace Institute based in Tottenham and messenger of peace for UNESCO He has recently been involved with ... [16] Independentng.com homepage - Home of Independent Newspapers Nigeria LimitedDance Of The Mask enriches Black History ... To many residents of, and visitors to, Dagenham, United Kingdom, October ... According to Chika Sylva-Olejeme, president of International Peace Institute, ... [17] IIFWP United Kingdom :: Activities of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace of Great ... Activities of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace of Great Britain ... Chika Sylva-Olejeme ... On 27th May the Womens Federation ... [18] My name is Philip Brown I live in London I have been involved with the International Peace Institute for six years now. Mr Chika Sylva-Olejeme is founder and president of the international Peace Institute few web sites can testify to that. In 2001 was part of the pioneers of EXIT in Germany International Peace Institute organised the dance of the mask with Nigeria high commission in London in 2004 Dance Of The Mask enriches Black History Month in UK By Mufu Onifade [19] International Peace Institute organised the London meeting 2006 in relations with the UK government in 2006 [20] He was made an ambassador of peace by The Interreligious & International Federation for World Peace and British Clergy Leadership Conference. See [21]. I can fax you letters that show notability in peace for Chika Sylva-Olejeme by the Members of parliament and Embassies in the UK. Chika Sylva-Olejeme lived in Hyde park residence 55 park Lane flat 165 when was in London for London meeting 2006 you can confirm call ++44 207409900 or call directly Mr. Ian Merrick on 02074099035. See the institute activities through UNESCO in Germany too [22]. This page that is about to be deleted has sparked up some kind of peace crusade in the USA see [23]. jack knight a singer and songwriter is an Ambassador for the international creed for peace this are more links for chika Sylva-Olejeme and International peace institute:

• Hyde Park Residence Park Lane – London [24]
• exit Ways out of violence for children and youth International [25]

International peace institute is also a UNESCO official actor in culture of peace UN project AFRICAN EUROPEAN INTERACTIVE [26] International peace institute has been a national partner for The International Child Art Foundation (ICAF) USA National Partners: [27] ICAF partnered with the following national organizations in previous Arts Olympiads:

• Albania, Ministry of Culture
• Andorra, UNESCO
• Aruba, Aruba Arts Foundation
• Austria, School Board of Vienna
• Azerbaijan, Ministry of Culture
• Bahrain, Court of the Crown Prince
• Barbados, Office of the First Lady
• Belarus, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Palace of Youth and Children
• Benin, Office of the First Lady
• Bolivia, Office of the First Lady and CONIF
• Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ministry of Education; Education Builds
• Botswana, National Museum
• Brazil, Instituto Brasil - Estados Unidos; Canal Futura
• Bulgaria, Future for Bulgaria Foundation; Spiritual Mirror
• Cayman Islands, National Gallery
• Chile, Fundacion Integra
• China, Ministry of Culture; Shanghai Cultural Development Foundation
• Colombia, Fundacion Proteger
• Costa Rica, Ministerio de Educacion
• Croatia, Ministry of Education
• Cuba, Ministerio de Educacion
• Cyprus, Ministry of Education
• Denmark, Children, Art & Pictures
• Dominican Republic, Ministry of Cultural Affairs
• Ecuador, Diario El Commercio; Holt International Children's Services
• Egypt, Ministry of Culture
• England, Tockington Manor School
• The Gambia, Department of State for Education
• Georgia, Ministry of Culture; Children Art Studio "Dserodena"
• Germany, Muncher Kunstlerhaus; ICAF e.V.
• Ghana, Explore Media and Educational Tours
• Grenada, Ministry of Education
• Honduras, Instituto de la Familia; Artemania
• Hungary, Ministry of Education
• India, Chandana Art Foundation International
• Iran, Institute for Intellectual Development of Children
• Israel, Projective - The Artists Museum
• Italy, Ministero Della Pubblica Istruzione
• Kazakhstan, Bobek Children's Foundation
• Kenya, Voluntary Youth Development
• Korea, Joong Ang Ilbo
• Kuwait, Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor
• Kyrgyz Republic, Meerim Foundation
• Latvia, Ministry of Culture; Art Teachers Association
• Lebanon, UNESCO - National Commission
• Lesotho, US Ambassador's Self Help Program
• Liberia, Office of the First Lady
• Lithuania, Office of the First Lady
• Macedonia, Ministry of Education
• Malaysia, Yellow House; UNICEF
• Maldives, Ministry of Information, Arts & Culture
• Malta, Maltese Education Division
• Mexico, Papalote - Museo del Nino; Casa Pacifica
• Moldova, Office of the First Lady; Children's Art School
• Mongolia, Mongol News Company; National Board for Children
• Mozambique, US Embassy
• Myanmar, Ministry of Education
• Namibia, National Art Gallery
• Nepal, UNESCO
• Netherlands, LOKV Institute of Arts Education
• New Zealand, Children's Art House Foundation
• Nigeria, Obafemi Awolowo University; International Peace Institute/UNESCO
• Norway, The Foundation of Children's History, Art & Culture; International Museum of Children's Art
• Pakistan, The Cupola Group; Funkor Child Art Center
• Palestine, Projective - The Artist's Museum
• Papua New Guinea, National Museum & Art Gallery
• Peru, Office of the First Lady; Ministry of Education; ICAF Peru
• Philippines, Department of Education and Culture; Museo Pambata Foundation
• Qatar, Qatar Foundation
• Romania, FINROART; Euro-Asia Promotion and Cultural Foundation
• Russia, Art School for Children
• Samoa, National University of Samoa
• Sierra Leone, Ministry of Youth, Education & Sports
• Singapore, Ministry of Education
• South Africa, Durban Children's Home Society
• Sri Lanka, Colombo Children's Book Society
• Sweden, Moderna Museet, Stockholm
• Taiwan, Association for Education through Art
• Tajikistan, Society and Children's Rights
• Tanzania, Furahini Youth Organization
• Thailand, Ministry of Education
• Togo, ONG-ATLAT; Partnerships & Exchange Organization
• Turkey, D-Atelier, Ankara
• Turkmenistan, Ministry of Education
• UAE, Ministry of Information & Culture
• United Kingdom, Eureka Museum
• Uzbekistan, Ministry of Education; Children and Adults Foundation
• Venezuela, Office of the First Lady
• Vietnam, Ministry of Culture & Information; Christina Noble Children's Foundation
• Yemen, Halaqa - International Cultural Circle
• Yugoslavia, K.I.D.S. and Decji Kulturni Centar
• Zambia, University of Zambia

logo for ipi - international peace institut of nigeria, c.s.olejeme, Nigeria [28]

• Delete alll. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• For the time and effort that the above poster put into defending these articles against deletion, he or she could have improved the articles to a keepable standard. But without the evidence I'm not going to do their work for them. Delete. Alba 20:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I Adulsalam D S i live in London had keen interest in this ideas and wanted to knoe the outcome of if all now what if a writers of the article are not informed enough about wiki edit i would have loved to do it for them for knowlege sake i dont know how peharps that the writers difficulty as well i dont think that we should loose such an information in wkipedia becuse of tecnical details My name is Philip Brown i have attemted to improved the articles to a keepable standard as suggested by Alba but it does not appear when i save them how ever iam glad about Adulsalam's note every body is not an expert however no luck in tring to edit wikipedia

• 'Delete all'. Unreferenced. <<-- I agree. There are no reputable sources for this article. It seems fabricated.Dudeman1st 11:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all There are now references, but still POV advertisement in the article and this organization is too obscure for inclusion. The UN it ain't. Unesco listing it doesn't give much weight IMHO. My vote is still for deletion.Dudeman1st 05:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

this is Philip Brown delete all, but i am sure that wikipedia will one day write articles about this man and his intiatives. By the way i am not advocating that these articles must be on the wikipedia, i will read and love the wikipedia all the same, delete all if wikipedia considers these articles fabrication irrespective of the references. but it tells me one thing nobody can really tell what is fabricated and what is not. As for me one day you will agree that these articles are not indeed fabricated. Good luck UTC from me it also DELETE ALL at least now you do not have any contest for your speedy deletion on Internationl Peace Institute "The page has been improved, go look again before deciding.": 86.129.68.54 14:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep The group is listed with UNESCO. [29] The article now has references and is improved, though more work is needed. From WP:AFD "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." (emphasis added)--agr 15:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep The group is listed with UNESCO. [30] The article now has references and is improved, 195.93.21.104 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

*Strong keep Articles improved Kobrown 15:23, 6 October 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 08:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Govezensky

Article does not demonstrate notability sufficient to meet the tests of WP:Bio. SteveHopson 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article certainly didn't look like anything else than a galery owner pushing his artist (or self) on WP. There was a brief appearance of the link on the Acrylics paint page this week. I might not have enough knowledge to do so but I suggest Delete Rawbear 21:39, 28 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 of the debate was no consensus. Stubbleboy 11:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Igwegbe Odum, the Omenuko of History

He's non-notable, "0" google hits. Page was created by Igbogirl (talk • contribs) and looking at her contributions this is most likely her great-grandfather. She also created the page Precious Williams where she mentions him. That article is also up for AFD. Delete. Stubbleboy 13:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Incidentally, there's something fishy about this one and the other edits and nominations that Igbogirl (talk • contribs) has made... OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak Delete, non-notable. --Yamla 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; fails WP:BIO. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-O google hits => hoax. Storm05 17:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can find about four google hits if I search for "Igwegbe Odum". It appears that he was a chief, not a king, though the difference between these two titles may not be as straight-forward as they appear. --Yamla 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As Yamla correctly points out there are Google hits on him. Chief and King are interchangeable. Here are the links: [31] He is mentioned in a book called "My Africa" written by Mbonu Ojike, which you can see here. This book dedicates some four pages to Igwegbe Odum and refers to him as King Igewgbe Odum. On page 98 of the book, there is a picture of King Odum's dead body lying "in state" the picture caption reads "King Igwegbe Odum lying in state (1940). Mourning the death of the shrewdest politician I have ever known in my town of Ndizuogo are Igwegbe's eldest son......." This url describes Igwegbe as the "Omenuko of history" - Omenuko, by Peter Nwana, is a famous Nigerian novel and it was the first novel to be written in the Nigerian language. Igwegbe is the subject matter of that novel. He is well known among Nigerians, is notable and deserves to be referenced on Wikipedia. In conclusion, Igwegbe Odum is a well-known African historical figure and most certainly not a hoax. Igbogirl 03:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Igwegbe Odum. Igbogirl is correct in that this is a real historical person on which the lead character in a famous Igbo novel by Pita Nwana has been based. This is mentioned in Alain Ricard, The Languages and Literatures of Africa: The Sands of Babel (James Currey Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0852555814, available on Google Books), p. 84, and in Harold Scheub, "A Review of African Oral Traditions and Literature", African Studies Review, Vol. 28, No. 2/3. (Jun. - Sep., 1985), p. 38. Scheub references an article by A. E. Afigbo, "Chief Igwegbe Odum: the Omenuko of History", in Nigeria Magazine, 90 (1966), p. 222-231. According to Scheub, Afigbo calls the novel "perhaps so far and from a literary point of view, one of the greatest ahievements of the [Igbo] language" (Scheub quoting Afigbo), but also argues that Omenuko, the fictionalized version of Chief Igwegbe Odum, is "nothing like his historical character" (Scheub's own words referencing Afigbo). Scheub's article is available on JSTOR. up+land 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • comment thank you for doing this research.
• Keep per Uppland. If he was a king, or held a comparable title, he is notable enough to merit an article per WP:BIAS. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that he was not a king, just a local chief. I could be wrong on this, however. --Yamla 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The primary problem with the proposed guideline on Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) is that it is fairly obviously Eurocentric. A number of problems exist in attempting to analogize out of this to non-European traditional leaders. Nations of the sort whose borders are recognised by international law may represent colonial impostures that don't correspond to local realities. Similarly, the fact that the holder of a traditional title holds no legal precedence recognized by a national government may not accurately reflect the fact that local traditions make them persons whose decisions are given great importance. For example, the office of the Oba of Benin continues to exist, and the Oba is treated with great deference, even if the kingdom no longer exists as a legal entity, and the territory where the Oba's writ extends crosses several national borders. Per WP:BIAS, each holder of the title is as entitled to an article as the kings or queens of England, as far as I can see. If Igwegbe Odum held a similar position, his inclusion should be equally automatic, even if he's an obscure figure in the English speaking world. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am a Nigerian Igbo as you can tell by my username. I have an MA in Igbo history. In Igbo culture, 'Kings' and 'Chiefs' are ALL "local". King does not have the same meaning in Igboland and other parts of Nigeria/West Africa as it does in, say, England or Sweden. For example, if you were to compare it to New York: there would a be King/Chief for Manhattan and another for Queens and another for Staten Island. In some instances there might even be a different King/Chief for the Upper East Side and another for midtown. I think that Uppland has basically established Igwegbe's notability in his research above. African history at the period during which Igwegbe lived was not generally a written history. For this man to actually show up in books, on a Google search and to be discussed at lectures to this day, in my mind establishes him as somebody notable. And the book, Omenuko which is allegedly written about him, is a major part of Igbo literary history. If this were the first-ever English language novel published, I think it would have been given more respect hereIgbogirl 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Obviously, the first English language novel should have an entry in the English Wikipedia. My point about the king vs. chief distinction was not to cast aspersion on the person, just to note that the notability criteria is written assuming a western-centric definition of the word, "king", which may not apply to Igwegbe Odum. Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) notes, for example, that a royal person is someone who is an official member of the ruling family of a country. Igwegbe Odum would not fit this definition. However, it is not my contention that this person is automatically not notable because he is not royalty (as per the notability definition). My only contention is that this person is not automatically notable for being a king or local chief. --Yamla 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Gotcha. Sorry to be pedantic but here is another example that illustrates my point. Princess_Comfort_Okpudili_Amobi_of_Ogidi This family were rulers only of Ogidi and therefore absolutely not the ruling family of any country - Ogidi is simply a regular sized town, in Anambra State, in Nigeria. Only 6 Google hits on her, two of those being Wikipedia hits and two being Answer.com hits hit. Therefore this person and her family would not seem to fit your critera for being notable for being royal, but you have however seen fit to include the article. I'm not meaning to be a pain, just trying to point out that Nigerian history and royalty is complex and sometimes indecipherable but should still be included. Thanks. Igbogirl 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Once again, I have not seen fit to include that article. And you have provided no evidence that that article was nominated for deletion. Please refrain from comparing articles. A great number of articles on Wikipedia violate some policy or guideline or are otherwise substandard and just have not been fixed yet. That is not an excuse for lowering the quality of all other articles. Instead, we should improve other articles which currently do not measure up. --Yamla 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't really see how WP:NOBLE comes into it, since his nobility is debatable. Why not skip the debate and just go by WP:BIO, which he clearly passes as a local political figure under criterion 3? Kafziel ^Talk 17:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIAS, as noted by Smerdis of Tlön and as per up+land. Lethiere 05:02, 29 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 redirect to Dungannon Primary School. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union Place Primary School

This nomination also includes Drumglass Primary School

Delete. First the school is no more. It is an ex school. Second it is not now and was not in its lifetime a notable school, the more so since it was a Primary school, and these are ten a penny in the UK of GB and NI. So it is simply a piece of non notable information, nay an item of indiscriminate information, and fails in so many ways. WP:NOT an indiscriminate (etc), WP:Notability simple because it isn't. And because it isn't there are no ghits, which is hardly surprising. Since the article is of today's vintage I suspect it may even be speediable. I bow to a more knowledgeable head over that. Fiddle Faddle

• Strong keep, obviously notable school, as all schools are. Suggest nominator withdraw nomination, as school AFDs are a waste of everyone's time since deletionists fail by default in the case of no consensus. --ForbiddenWord 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It would probably be worth showing that you have read the article before stating an opinion. The nomination and the article(s) both state that the schools no longer exist. The epithet "deletionist" is really aggravating. In order to keep Wikipedia worthwhile the dross has to be removed. Think of it as a process of winnowing the wheat from the chaff. Seeking to include all the schools under the sun and adding the defunct ones is not really in that spirit. Fiddle Faddle 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That may be true, but there's nothing that makes me think that Wikipedia's most precious articles (school articles) should be "winnowed" and not allowed room for expansion and organic growth. --ForbiddenWord 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • room for expansion and organic growth is a euphemism for "leave it alone and maybe someone will do something to it in the future." If these articles are precious as you state, please make them notable such that they survive. Merely asking for a "stay of execution in case some future fellow passes by" is a recipe for a load of non notable stub and sub-stub articles. I realise you take the topic of schools very seriously. An excellent use of that seriousness would be to research genuine notability and assert it within the articles. Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Forbidden, you have now claimed in multiple articles that all schools are notable and insitsted that they are Wikipedia's "most precious articles" (apparently more important than featured articles or articles about basic things like light, carbon or biographies of influential people like Buddha or George Washington) without giving any explanation or grounds for this. To be blunt, it is getting tiresome and borderline disruptive. Please try to contribute something useful to these discussions. JoshuaZ 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That's preposterous. Stating my opinion is not disruptive. I am trying to make my view on the matter heard in these discussions, and I am not going to be discouraged just because certain editors disagree with me. --ForbiddenWord 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It may become disruptive when you make the same assertion again and again and (here is the important part) make no effort to back the assertion up. The fact that many editors disagree with the assertion certainly doesn't help matter. I'm not attempting to discourage you, however, your repeated assertions with no attempt to back them up is significantly reducing the signal to noise ratio in the school AfDs. (tI might be less disruptive if you actually tried to do some minimal research to the school articles or bothered cleaning up/expanding any of the myriad school articles you insist on keeping). JoshuaZ 19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete These are defunct schools. They fail WP:Schools. Catchpole 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Primary schools are not inherently notable. They are indeed "ten a penny" in the UK. Without some other claim to fame, and considering the fact that this school no longer exists, this article is pointless. Someone should probably consider changing red to black in List of Primary schools in Northern Ireland. -- IslaySolomon 14:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, someone should consider turning all the redlinks black in that article and only having links when notability is proven and asserted. Fiddle Faddle 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well yes, obviously leaving links to notable NI primary schools. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I can't seem to find one of the most obvious examples [32][33]. --IslaySolomon 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. If next Afd (for the current school) decides to keep the school (which I'm not proposing), a line or two about these two schools can be added there. Fram 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The above may be a reasonable compromise- keep the 'daughter' school with a reference to its history and have the parent schools' articles redirect Blowmonkey 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. First, the fact that the school has closed does not make it less notable. Second, the school is distinct from others because it was affiliated with the Presbyterian Church and its closing was a result of an attempt to create an integrated education system in Northern Ireland. In other words, this is more interesting than an elementary school in suburban New Jersey. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Non-notable elementary schools that are no longer in existence and unrecognized by Google? I'll go with strong delete. -- Kicking222 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete both. They aren't linked to from anywhere significant so they've got no chance of improvement. Google doens't know it exists. The half-sentance it gets in Dungannon Primary School is sufficient. Need I say more? Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Being affiliated with a random church does not automatically confer notability, nor does closing as a result of education reforms in Northern Ireland. The notability in that case would be the reforms themselves, not the affected schools. This article does not assert any notability. Resolute 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm inclusionist, but this is a bit much. --Dhartung | Talk 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, IslaySolomon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Defunct and redundant. They are closed. They closed ages ago. How can they possibly be Verifiable and signifcant? Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Resolute, Ultra-Loser and partially Islay. While I agree with some of the keepers who have pointed out that whether or not a school is defunct should not affect whether or not we have an article, these schools would be not notable even if they were still around. JoshuaZ 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect both Union Place Primary School and Drumglass Primary School to the Dungannon Primary School article. Silensor 06:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Silensor.  ALKIVAR™ 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Silensor. bbx 06:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Silensor. --Myles Long 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect do not keep. There is no consensus that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per the above comments; redirects are cheap and easy. RFerreira 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above comments. Bahn Mi 00:19, 4 October 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dungannon Primary School

Delete on the basis of so many discussions over such a long time. A primary school is never notable simply because it exists, nor even because it has existed for a while. To be notable a primary school must be inherently notable. It is verifiable. All schools are verifiable. It will even have a report by Ofsted, as do all such schools, and this one had a classroom assistant who was awarded "Classroom Assistant of the Year" recently. But none of that is notability. Primary schools are ten a penny. Every school is not sacred. This fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Fiddle Faddle 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Education in Northern Ireland. Catchpole 14:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable run-of-the-mill primary school, one of many, many, many interchangeable ones. Fram 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Dungannon per proposed WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep there are plenty of other primary schools in NI listed. A consistant approach should be to keep them all or delete almost all, except the very notable ones. Are Abercorn Primary School or Ballycarry Primary School any more notable?
  • Comment No strong objections to removing them here. JoshuaZ 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I challenge you to prove its significance and to assert it in the article if you can Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Primary schools are almost never notable, and nothing about this school is. It isn't particularly known fot its education, it has no notable alumni nor anything else. It has no significant non-trivial sources about it so it would even fail WP:SCHOOL which seems to try to include almost all schools. JoshuaZ 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Re WP:SCHOOL - see point 7. Dungannon PS as a history of 100+ years if the parent schools are counted within its history. Counting it out because of a merger would hardly be right? Blowmonkey 15:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you mean the proposed WP:SCHOOL, which is a terrible proposition, and in particular, the "50+ years of existence" rule, which would include pretty much every school on earth anyway? That WP:SCHOOL? -- Kicking222 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per... whatever. I'm tired of the school crap. -- Kicking222 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 03:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. The headmaster was awarded as the "Headteacher of the Year" of Northern Ireland as recent as 2004 according to BBC News (now cited within the article). The other two schools, Union Place Primary School and Drumglass Primary School, should be redirected here. Silensor 06:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. bbx 00:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cedars 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor.  ALKIVAR™ 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:29, 2 October 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Congress of Accountants

Unwikified article about a congress whose importance is not demonstrated. Guy 14:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. See the references in the article, including a story in the People's Daily of Beijing, which I think demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It's been around for over a century, and did you bother googling for it? Not only are there over 35,000 hits, but many of them are from distinguished news or government sites (the BBC, china.org.cn). The article, of course, will need expansion and wikifying. Leave a message on my talk page if you want me to help. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I did; I could verify its existence, not its significance. Guy 15:14, 2 October 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 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding cow

"Exploding Cows" does not even seem to be a real issue and does not even seem to rise to the level of an urban myth. It seems as if this article was put up along with all the other animals. The subject just seems to be complete nonsense. ---Gothere 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree - this appears to be at least a valid urban myth, and may even have a basis in a real-world event. Given the linkages to a variety of games, etc., this seems to be a reasonably valid article. -----Lhedbor 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment snopes.com has never heard of it, however. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that it is "a reasonably valid article" and should not be deleted. It appears to be accurate and useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.100.221.52 (talk • contribs).
• While in no way endorsing the claim that this article might be useful, I will note that Dave Barry's blog has called for this article to be retained: http://blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blog/2006/09/a_call_to_actio.html FlashSheridan 15:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since it seems that the source of "Exploding Cows" is a running gag for Dave Barry, maybe we would be better off adding it as a subsection to his entry & have the term Exploding Cows redirect to him... or we could just create a Wikipedia entry for every joke he comes up with.--Gothere 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Don't delete others' comments. Simply add your own. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is not a valid issue. It's not real. It's not even 'urban myth'. There is no reason to keep this since it serves no purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.32.212 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 15:38:54 (UTC)
• Comment If Dave Barry writes of exploding cows, then this topic does indeed serve a purpose. It becomes an anchor point for those who seek to research his works of comedy and parody. If we start deleting topics simply because someone thinks they are "pointless", then soon it cud lead Wikipedia into udder chaos. I say this: Let the exploding cow remain! (And if we attemtped to create an entry for every joke Mr. Barry comes up with, we would need to add at least 7 additional entries! ;) --Pirateboy 08:56, 27-September 2006 (PDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PirateBoy (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 15:59:59 (UTC)
• This is a valid article and should be retained. Exploding cows are a routine event, although not widely reported. This should really be left well enough alone. In fact, more research needs to be done into the subject of exploding cows and the wikipedia entry could even be expanded more broadly. --rbenjamin 27-Sept 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.32.227.90 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 16:07:53 (UTC)
• Comment Pirateboy is right, as I believe this so-called myth has gone past the tipping point. It behooves Wikipedia to maintain this entry, even if there is legitimate grounds to question its technical accuracy. As Mr. Barry might say: Burger! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meanie theBlue (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 16:21:46 (UTC)
• I once had a girlfriend who lived in Canada whose cousin's best friend was killed by an exploding cow. True story! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-27 17:13:45 (UTC)
• Comment This article does no harm. It's not hurting the site or anyone who uses it. If you believe it to be nonsense, just ignore it and be on your way instead of insisting on taking it down, for which there is no valid reason anyway.
  • Comment If an article is nonsense, then there is no reason to keep it. Leaving bad articles in the encyclopedia undermines its (admittedly already poor) credibility. If the encyclopedia knowingly includes nonsense, then it is a nonsense encyclopedia. Djcartwright 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• If we let individual's opinions decide which articles remain and which are deleted, Wiki would be in chaos, at least what would be left of it. I saw people arguing that a page on some aspect of physics (the specific one eludes my memory) needed to be taken down because it was "irrelevent."

  To those who consider this to be inappropriate, obscene, disgusting smut, let me remind you that many of Wiki's most viewed pages are lists of porn stars. This article is much more appropriate than any of those, yet this is the one that gets marked for deletion. This article also serves more of a purpose. It may just save some farmer's life by, say, teaching him not to light up a cigarette next to a cow that has just flatulated.71.100.4.176 19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, borderline nonsense. --Nydas 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Retention should be automatic when the reason for deletion is it's "unencyclopedic". We don't need the userbox wars to carry over to other articles. It does go together with the other "exploding" articles too.Sct72 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Googles shows over a million hits for "Exploding cows". At a minimum it warrants a page for the extent of the urban myth developed around it. I agree a cross-reference to Dave Barry would be appropriate.
• Interestingly enough the article currently doesn't mention Dave Barry. If he is the only reason to keep it, than it must be Delete.128.6.78.69 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Please, Googling is not as easy as it may seem. "Exploding Cows" gives 4560 hits[34], some of them duplicates or related to the Wikipedia article, and most often only mentioned in passing. So the urban myth is clearly not so widespread, and does not deserve its own page here. Fram 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Exploding cows does not get a million hits of google, it gets 596 - [35] JASpencer 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has a fine reputation, on par with that of Encyclopedia Britannica. A study found that the two have similar numbers of errors. Just because something isn't normaly found in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. As long as the information is factual it should remain, no mater how "silly" it seems to some people.65.100.221.52 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Sarah
• Comment - If we could just cite a reputable source for the composition of cow fart, there shouldn't even be an argument about whether or not to keep this article. It would be a definite keeper! Knowing the composition of cow fart is very interesting stuff. For a budding young chemist, it could be a free potential source of a fun chemical mix for use in experiments. HeWhoE 22:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I note that the following guideline on Wikipedia's page regarding article deletion, and specifically under the heading of what not to delete: "Articles we are not interested in -- some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." Exploding cow is part of American culture, as are the familiar topics of most widely syndicated or published humorists and social commentators. Not because of Dave Barry per se, but because of the result wrought upon our culture, the article should stay. 68.160.254.170 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Avon
• Delete. No references or any other indication that this is a genuine practice. Article even calls it "alleged", but I don't see that this is even an urban legend of note. Cow tipping, on the other hand... TCC (talk) (contribs)
• Delete. Even the article itself says that it's untrue because of the lack of oxygen in the intestines of a cow, so it's obviouly nothing more than an urban myth. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It has a reference now. And I should point out that whether or not it is an urban myth is irrelevent. Wiki still has an article on "sasquatch." Why don't you go try to kill that article? Just think of this article as describing an urban myth instead of trying to prove it. And as a previous user already pointed out, just because some individuals don't like an article, doesn't mean it should be deleted; this is even in Wiki's official policy. It does you no harm, and I don't see why any of you should actually care enough to fight so vehemently for its deletion.71.100.4.176 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not one that's to the point. We all know that cows produce lots of methane; the question is do they explode if you light their farts? Your reference says no. "There are various urban legends about exploding cows, but none that we could corroborate." TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As I have previously said, there are many Wiki articles about things whose reality is in question or already disproved. The fact is that even if the exploding cow myth is not true, it has still had a very tangible influence in pop culture, as evidence by the article's list of media in which it has appeared.
• Keep If it's good enough for The Darwin Awards [36] and Seanbaby [37], it's good enough for me. Stev0 06:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Things like P-P-P-Powerbook are at least funny; this is just dumb. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep also per Stev0 above. Its an interesting possibility, stemming from a biologic phenomenon, but nonetheless a myth, which needs proper explanation for avoiding ignorant from believing deeply into such a myth. The inclusion of this article in an Encyclopedia is well justified, as it dispels the notion and explains proper rationale behind such thinking. EyeMD 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete cruft. Wikipedia is not something made up in school one day. Anomo 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nydas, Fram, and as Wikipedia not for made up stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• VERY strong vote for keep Because I agree with EyeMD, Stev0 and the anonymous person who posted at 02:07, 28 September 2006. This article should stay, if only to dispel a (possible) myth surrounding bovine flatulence. It may not be as serious an issue as, say, cardiovascular surgery or 19th-century Russian literature, but it's a quite valid one nonetheless. Wikipedia exists to answer questions. If we don't keep this article, that's one less answer we can provide. I do agree with cross-referencing it to the article on Dave Barry as well. Marialadouce 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the rhetorical question at hand is how did you even come accross this artical something must have brought you here isnt that validity enough?skexeaz 17:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Moo. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep The concept of exploding cows is sufficiently widespread to warrant an article, if only to eliminate misconceptions like the Exploding bird article. And furthermore, how is this even close to being deletion worthy when there are essay-length articles about anime series with far less cultural impact than the idea of an exploding cow? Chris Buckey 03:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Widespread? It has a mere 875 google hits for exploding cow and 635 for exploding cows [38][39]. For an Internet fad, that's pathetic. This is an order of magnitude less important than even obscure anime.--Nydas 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would also vote to keep this entry. Some of the beauty of Wikipedia is that there are articles on Shakespeare and articles on exploding cows.71.232.158.231 01:40, 6 October 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 08:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ed, Edd n Eddy movie

The movie is already mentioned on the main Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy page, and at this time, it does not have enough information to provide an entire article DietLimeCola 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "It is slated to be released in 2007" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- IslaySolomon 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Ed%2C+Edd+n+Eddy+Movie%22 I'm not seeing any reliable sources for infomation about the movie. FYI, [40] is adding this film to the filmographies of many actors though I'm googling and have so far found 0 hits for the actors and the film. TransUtopian 04:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not yet enough for a stand-alone article. Most importantly, no credible sources as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 05:28, 1 October 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 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of doomsday scenarios

Duplicates lists and discussions at End of civilization and Human extinction. POV and Original Research, no balance or commentary on a controversial topic like the other two articles - the line between science fiction and real possible doomsday scenarios is hard to determine and needs lots of supporting evidence and contrary views.) Stbalbach 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- List is not a duplicate and lists do not require explanation and the list is not POV and the list does have the potential to expand, therefore, it should stay. MapleTree 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course it is a duplicate, look at the articles, they all three purport to do the same thing: list doomsday scenarios. There is a long history of editors trying to merge End of civilization and Human extinction into a single article, but article approach differences have prevented it. Now we have a third person (yourself) with an unsourced list of doomsday scenarios and a third approach to the same problem. It's highly confusing for the reader to determine which list to look at. Also just because it is a list it is not exempt from original research and POV rules. Who says these are doomsday scenarios - half of them are science fiction as far as I and many others are concerned (based on previous edit histories of the other articles). -- Stbalbach 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The others are not a list and the "Further Reading" and "External Links" plus the articles themselves, provide plenty of references, my last words on the matter, BYE ! MapleTree 00:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV and OR, it also appears to have been created to circumvent the deletion of the Category:Human extinction. --Peta 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta. Just can't be made encyclopedic. It was a very nice Asimov book, though. [41] --Dhartung | Talk 12:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unrelated concepts and topics mixed together in absurd way (like Ragnarok and Terrorism). An article about the book by Asimov would be useful, though. Pavel Vozenilek 12:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta and Pavel. Michael Kinyon 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You gotta love how the first scenario is alien invasion. Arbusto 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Maybe we should do a category on this topic, if one doesn't exist. If there is a similar category, then I'll change my vote to delete.
  • I tried but they want to delete than one too ! Category:Human extinction MapleTree 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MapleTree posted a plea for votes to save this article 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC) on Talk:Famine, but apparently did not note it here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Move to a category. This sort of thing doesn't really seem to work as a list. -- Gwern (contribs) 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This should be deleted as duplication (along with the two mentioned off the top, we have Doomsday event and Extinction event), but I thought I'd leave a note to Maple rather than piling one on: this may not be duplication in that you don't see elsewhere the info you think belongs here, but it is duplication insofar as those other pages ought to be able to handle what this list contains. That is, we seem to have enough articles on this topic (the list is functioning as a category, basically), so try to improve the other articles and, of course cite your sources. Also, rationalize what belongs. Terrorism can, of course, have a "catastrophic effect on humans" but it would only be an extinction level event as a proximate cause of something else (e.g., nuclear holocaust). I do not agree, BTW, that this "just can't be made encyclopedic." Potentialities of this sort can be sourced, and I think there might actually be an absence in our coverage (after just a glance): are we separating human level extinction from terrestrial tree of life extinction? Terrorism won't bother bacteria—is there anything (beyond the Sun's demise) that would eliminate all life on Earth? We should list/describe that, if we don't already. Marskell 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article complements the other articles in question, Doomsday event, End of civilization and Human extinction. Whether any of those should be merged is a separate issue, and probably confusing this decision. In fact, including this (still explanding) complete list in any of the other articles would be overwhelming to the article and not appropriate. Better to link to this list. --Serge 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to Events that could cause human extinction. 72.139.119.165 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed to delete.72.139.119.165 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Serge. Waitak 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Better handled as a category, as evidenced by the complete lack of prose in the list. Note that MapleTree is trying to recruit "keep" votes. --Carnildo 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge as Serge suggested hereinabove. This list may need weeding: e.g. tornadoes are common and will not end the world, but a bad tornado may well be a "day of doom" for a small community Anthony Appleyard 05:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See Super Outbreak - MapleTree 07:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Peta. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is exactly what categories and AWB are for. In this case, sub-categories would likely help. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious attempt by MapleTree to circumvent the outcome of the debate at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_27#Category:Human_extinction. --Ligulem 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not create Category:Human extinction I did create this list, which has a different definition to better fit these articles. MapleTree 11:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Serge — The decision regarding whether to keep this article or not should be made on its own merits; not on the outcome of a category deletion. The topic of doomsday scenarios is valid and encyclopedic. But some type of general merge or reorganization of the "end of..." pages may be beneficial. — RJH (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this list does not duplicate. it could use some sensible editing, but its concept is sound. Joan-of-arc 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: MapleTree is trying to solicit meatpuppets. Please see my post on Maple's talk page here; Maple posted the exact same message ("Could use votes to save this article [List of doomsday scenarios], thanks") on fifty-eight talk pages of articles associated with doomsday, beginning approximately 24 hours after this discussion started. I think Maple seriously compromised the impartiality of this discussion. --Iamunknown 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I advised editors of a vote involving a list with that the article was on, nothing more and nothing less. MapleTree 10:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  MapleTree (talk • contribs) reported the warnings in his talk page as vandalism, but the request was rejected. -- ReyBrujo 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • As MapleTree (talk • contribs) legitimitely archived his talk page but illegitamately deleted my message to him, here is the link to the history page with my post. --Iamunknown 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw one of those "solication" requests from MapleTree on the Talk page for Supervolcano. The only reason I saw it was because I had posted a question on that talk page after forming a new interest in supervolcanoes. I'm sure I have all kinds of biases like anyone else, I'm just not sure why I could not be "impartial" in this voting simply because I learned about it on Talk:supervolcano. If you think my vote is not impartial, please explain why. To the contrary, I would say that my opinion on this issue, due to my lack of previous interest, is relatively neutral. Perhaps it is the neutral bias to which you object? --Serge 02:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    I am unsure what you accuse me of objecting to by using the paradoxical term "neutral bias." I will tell you what I do advocate, however, and what I do object to. I advocate making objective decisions, by which I mean making decisions (keep, delete, merge, etc.) a posteriori. I consider Wikipedians who monitor the Articles for Deletion page more likely to be objective and a posteriori compared to Wikipedians solicited specifically because of the extent of the discussion's correspondence with their own preconceived ideas. By soliciting votes from fifty-eight articles related to the article we are discussing here, MapleTree (talk • contribs) has compromised this discussion by introducing possible a priori judgements. Specifically, because the preconceived ideas of Wikipedians who monitor Articles for Deletion are less likely to correspond to the article in discussion here than Wikipedians solicied from fifty-eight articles pertaining to doomsday scenarios, I consider the former more likely to be objective and more likely to be capable to pass a posteriori judgements than the latter. I consider the former group more likely to be able to accept or deny the strength of a deletion proposal on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of deletion, rather than the extent of the proposal's correspondence with their own preconceived ideas. I do not think that your vote is necessarily impartial because you were solicited, Serge; because MapleTree solicted requests to "save this article," however, I think that he introduced sufficient a priori and subjective judgements to this discussion to create an impartial, subjective, and a priori discussion. --Iamunknown 03:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    I see. It is the "save this article" language to which you object. I suppose that might be a problem, but it could work either way. When I saw it, I wasn't overwhelmed with a desire to go save an article, it piqued my interest to find out what the fuss is all about. I read the comments here, and the articles in question, and voted accordingly. It could have gone either way. I honestly don't think I was biased to find in favor of saving because of the language used in the solicitiation. --Serge 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    I admire your a posteriori judgement, Serge. I object not only to the "save this article" language posted on fifty-eight peripherally-related talk pages by MapleTree (talk • contribs), but also to any solicitations to discuss the deletion of any article. Granted, the notice on every page discussed for deletion is specifically such a solicitation and is arguably most likely to attract possible a priori judgements, but I think it is necessary to prevent confusion; but it is unacceptable to attract any more possible judgements and thus further subjectively bias the discussion. Nonetheless, it is "...considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated [for deletion]...." (WP:SOCK) Finally, I wish participants in every discussion would "...disclose whether [they] are an article's primary author or if [they] otherwise have a vested interest in the article." (WP:AfD) Then we might not be having this discussion and instead be improving Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    The full quote from WP:SOCK is, "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.". You conveniently left out that critical clause that I emboldened: in order to attract users with known views and bias. How MapleTree could possibly know the views and bias of me or anyone else who happened to stumble on to one of his innocent solicitations, I have no idea. But maybe his crystal ball is in better order than mine. Apparently you think so. --Serge 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    I apologize for leaving out that clause. I did not intend to, as you accuse me of, "redact the relevant portions" and "conveniently [leave] out [the] critical clause." I honestly did not, at the time I quoted WP:SOCK, find it [the clause] important, although I can see I was mistaken. I fid not think I needed to illuminate that point. I was mistaken. I disagree, however, that the solicitations of MapleTree (talk • contribs) were innocent or innocuous; I argue that they were indeed harmful. I think that specifically because MapleTree's posts were a request to "save this article," they inherently attract (not solely, but largely) users with known views and biases that specifically correspond to this article, thus violating the specific clause of WP:SOCK in its entirety. --Iamunknown 06:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    So your argument rests on the assumption that the "save this article" wording in the solicitations is likely to attract more of those who are inclined to save articles in general, to save this particular article, or both, than those who are more inclined to delete it for some reason. I disagree. I could see it working either way. It could just as easily have backfired on him, and, judging by the way the votes are going, appears to have accomplished exactly that. --Serge 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails list standards: this list has no firm requirements for inclusion ("events[] which could potentially have a catastrophic effect" is not a clear delineation). Also, it overlaps at least two existing resources that have themselves had intermittent efforts toward merger; further muddying of the waters is not necessary. Issues with MapleTree's possible efforts to subvert deletion result on previous content is troubling; this concern is made manifest with the information per Iamunknown, above. Serpent's Choice 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Either delete or merge with one of the similar articles, all of which should either be merged or should cross-reference each other. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but define a criterion for inclusion of articles to be on the list. a working definition might be a catastrophe that could kill at least 100,000,000 people, a small enough number since that's less than two percent of the world population. Cdcdoc 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  Someone should be able to define a set of criteria for inclusion now. If the result is keep but define a set of criteria for inclusion, I doubt the criteria will be created because the list will have already been kept, the goal of achieving favorable consensus already achieved; but if the proposal is delete unless a set of criteria for inclusion is created, then there is significant timely motivation for the condition to be met. If a set of criteria cannot now be created, but can be created in the future, then the article can be nominated for deletion review. --Iamunknown 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unles a set of criteria for inclusion are created. I think that "if [an event] is listed as an X [potentially apocalyptic event], that [event] must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source" (from the essay Lists in Wikipedia). None of the events in this list give any note by any reliable published source as to their apocalyptic nature. Thus this list is original research. But I agree with Marskell (talk • contribs) that the content in this list can be made encyclopedic. But until specific criteria for inclusion are created such that this list cannot exponentially grow, and such that it only permits verifiable information, I nominate it for deletion. --Iamunknown 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. I thought of specific criteria I want to know immediately if I were to come to this article. Is it an article about doomsday, or about any events that pose existential risk? The two events are dissimilar. Doomsday may refer to different Christian eschatological beliefs, or it may refer to any doomsday event, which "...may range from a major disruption of human civilization, to the extinction of human life, to the destruction of the planet Earth, to the annihilation of the entire universe." (Doomsday event) Existential risk may not necessarily "...annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life...," but may merely "...permanently and drastically curtail its [Earth-originating intelligent life's] potential."

  So, is this article going to,

  1. elaborate on and illuminate various Christian eschatological belifes,
  2. list any doomsday event,
  3. detail any event which may "...annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life...," or
  4. merely list any event which may "...permanently and drastically curtail its [Earth-originating intelligent life's] potential."

  If it is the first, it is a duplicate of Eschatology; if it is the second, it is a duplicate of End of civilization; if it is the third, it is a duplicate of End of civilization; and if it is the fourth, it is deserves an entirely new name and new content, if that content is verifiable.

  There, if anyone can provide a specific set of criteria that does not specifically describe another article as I layed out, or if anyone can show me where my reasoning is wrong and how this list could be distinct from the three (and fourth hypothetical) article, then I will be impressed and will gladly consider changing my vote. --Iamunknown 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and keep the Doomsday category instead. Calwatch 04:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Suggested criterion: Any event which has the potential to annihilate intelligent life and also much of the planet's biodiversity; the entry must have a reliable source cited. Joan-of-arc 06:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• We've been through this before in the other articles. Just because a source lists it doesn't mean it's valid. Many of the sources list scenarios that are science fiction. Every entry needs to have a reliable source listed, with the scenario put into context in terms of its likelihood, and any contrary views presented. This simply can't be done in a "List of" article. We already have two other articles that do this. -- Stbalbach 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral List of Doomsday Scenarios would include: asteroid impact, supervolcanic eruption, variation in solar output and other scientific hypotheses based on past events. I believe the title of this list is intuitive and should be used in this regard. Pendragon39 04:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but edit I think it holds merit as an article, but things like hurricanes, which affect relativly few people in the whole world, and the article titled "The End is Nigh" should be removed from the list as "The End is Nigh" is not an actual even that could lead to eventual desturction of the world as we know it, but an editorial. All in all, keep the article, but see to it that it is redone properly. Optomal7 23:42, 6 October (UTC)
• Comment remove the nonsense entries like tornado and hurricane. It is ironic that one of the article's opponents Stbalbach re-inserts such items in the article (after their deletion), which are obvious nonsense and then oppose the article's existence. Doesnt sound like good faith. Cdcdoc 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cdcdoc, your wrong. I am trying to get people to cite sources for adding and removing entries, this is Wikipedia policy. "Nonsense entries" is your personal opinion. Please take this up on the article talk page and defend your position and stop trying to start some kind of conspiracy theory. -- Stbalbach 19:28, 6 October 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. - Bobet 11:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinopolis

The article appears to have been created to promote the company, as evidenced by the creator's internal and external linkspamming at wine-related articles and elsewhere (Kingdom85 (talk • contribs)). More importantly, the article fails to assert notability of any kind, thus failing Wikipedia:Notability. It further fails the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) by easily not qualifying for criteria (2) or (3), and having no independent coverage (Google News gives three press releases and two trivial mentions). Note that regular Google results seem to be heavily influenced by cross-linking and other advertising strategies that fit the pattern of promotion that has been observed here at Wikipedia. Delete. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it's probably spam as it stands and a fair few of the links need to come off the other articles, but it is a notable tourist attraction in London. Yomangani^talk 15:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs to be rewritten and expanded, but technorati returns 484 blog posts that mention it, so it's probably safe to say that it's a notable tourist attraction. The alexa ranking is 305,699, which is mediocre. If it lives and you want me to lend a hand, just leave a message on my talk page. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:12, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The JK Project

Well google search returns about 104 hits for "The JK Project", the only external link is a myspace page, and the user who created it was a User:Jake187 leading me to believe this could also be a vanity article, Delete, Derktar 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

• Delete it-Vanity and Hoax article. Storm05 17:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. —Scott5114↗ 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and not notable. I think this would have even qualified for speedy delete --Zudduz 14:27, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EUKhost

Spamtastic advertising, violates WP:NPOV and WP:V -- Linkspamremover 15:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note - nomination removed from log by Radnam - Yomangani^talk 15:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Spamtastically delicious! I also have warned the author not to remove AfD notifications. Wildthing61476 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• I love the smell of vanispamcruftisement in the, er, afternoon. Smells like delete. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly a copyvio from their own site, but I'll just flag it as advertising right now. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RadNam 14:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Please donot Delete. There's no advertising in the article. Its just an introduction about a web hosting company and services offered by the company. There are other similar articles over here.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. RexNL 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Awful Show

Non-notable podcast. Fails WP:WEB. (Yes, an award is mentioned, but it is not a "well-known" award.) -- Merope ^Talk 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete the article's author wrote to delete it and it's now set as speedy by someone else. Anomo 15:20, 28 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 merge I am redirecting an editors interested in this topic can do the content merge. W.marsh 19:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A New Hope (song)

A non-notable song. Fails the WP:MUSIC/SONG proposal and does not include sources. Nonpareility 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Surely this should be merged into Dude Ranch ? -- Beardo 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Beardo Mallanox 00:14, 29 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Charles Royal

I've listed this one for deletion because it seems an obvious instance of using Wikipedia for self-promotion. The silly games over the guy's age are irritating enough (is this meant to make it look like it came from an independent source? it reads like a press release), not to mention obvious spam like the link to a searchpage on Google. ND 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

SOURCE INFORMATION LISTED BELOWbethbar511:37 6 October, 2006

abstain - Changing my opinion based on the rewrite and other comments (was previously delete) --PdDemeter 17:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

keep- Article has been re-written. However,non-notable flag is inaccurate. Ndorward seems to have some personal issue with Royal. He/she erased a reference from Geri Allen that she first recorded in DC on Royal's debut album Dream Come True 1979, citing it as false. FYI Gregory Charles Royal, Geri Allen Clarence Seay Warren Taylor and Jeff Corbett personnel. Reference the album via the song Dancer on web search. Internet Broadway Data Base, Duke Ellington Orchestra albums on major labels and Biographical Encyclopedia of Jazz etc etc. are all legitimate. Article information is factual. bethbar5 20:55, 29 September 2006

I'm still voting delete. Sure, Royal has played with notable musicians, & was in the posthumous Ellington band decades after Ellington's death, & he's in comprehensive specialist jazz resources like Feather's book. But playing with notable musicians doesn't in itself make you a notable musician. -- I deleted the ref. to him in the Allen entry because no details were provided about the recording, & it didn't turn up in AMG or in a discography of Geri Allen's recordings that I consulted. Fair enough: a 1979 recording would certainly make it her first recorded date, though the album seems to be extremely obscure. I'd glad to see you've deleted some of the more obvious puffery in the article ("renaissance man" &c &c), but I'm still not convinced Royal is deserving of a page, especially when it starts to have ripple effects on the pages of major jazz musicians (since irrelevant links to him keep getting added to pages of players like Art Blakey). --ND 04:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

keep. This is my final response. To repond to the previous comment, one can simply find tons of artists on Wi that have far less creditials. As far as the critertia set by Wi on what constitutes notable, Royal meets this test. Not to mention that he is the judge on America's Hot Musician, a nationally distributed program, that is part of the Plight of American Music Program being distributed to schools nationwide. He also has two charting pop songs to his credit Trust the Love You See and Can't Let Love by Ariel... 13:31, 30 September bethbar5

Amicus curiae. Some of the notable jazz trombonists of the recent generations are (in alphabetical order) Clifton Anderson, Robin Eubanks, Wycliffe Gordon, Delfeayo Marsalis, and Steve Turre, but I haven't heard of Royal travelling in the same musical circles as those guys. • Shadowhillway 17:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK it's been 5 days. Currently we've got one "keep" (the main editor of the page, Bethbar5), one "delete" (me), a delete changed to an abstain, & a comment (rather than a vote) pointing out that Royal's pretty obscure. Any further thoughts, anyone? --ND 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Does the apathy say something? AMG doesn't have an entry for Royal. The Art Blakey chronology, a well-regarded source among jazz researchers, does not mention Royal. The two articles that link to this article, List of jazz trombonists and Mercer Ellington, were edited to link after the creation of this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with the intent of including encyclopedic knowledge. There are other avenues for hosting a biography on the Web, so I will vote to delete. • Shadowhillway 23:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comment because of additional comments by others...This twisted logic that because Royal does not travel in the circles of musicians, who by the way are very respectful of Royal's work, who are strictly "jazz trombonists" entirely misses the point that Royal is MORE than just a jazz trombonist and he is not seeking inclusion as a jazz trombonist-even though he could. Not only has he performed in many of the same bands as the afforementioned (Turre and Royal were in the CBA ensemble), Turre, Eubanks, Anderson and Royal toured with World of Trombones etc in addition to Slide Hamptons comments which are in a Downbeat Magazine ad in May 2006)

What makes Royal stand out in addition to the additions to the article is that he is in the social front of music TODAY with American Youth Symphony and his program America's Hot Musician which is a significant program for music education and awareness. It seems the contributors are jazz affectionados. I submit how many average people know of any of the musicians you have cited-including Art Blakey. Notability and obscurity should be considered from a neutral vantage point and the totality of the artist. bethbar5

Well, the reason why Royal's entry came to my attention in the first place was the efforts of himself or his friends (I assume you're in some way affiliated with him?) to associate his name with the jazz entries, through inserting contrived references to him in the entries of well-known jazz musicians like Art Blakey, Mercer Ellington & Geri Allen. Anyway, there are no entries in Wikipedia for the American Youth Symphony or America's Hot Musician (I dread to say this, as I get the feeling that I'm unintentionally inviting their creation....), so I guess they're currently obscurer than Art Blakey. Sounds fine to me. --ND 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

ResponseThe reason the links to others was put in in the first place was because of the Wi message that the article contained no links and should be added (check the history of the article).Accordingly, they were added. If this was done in error it was not meant to be. However this does not diminish Royal's accomplishments regardless of whether he is a "widely" recorded as the trombonists mentioned. As we know that artistic quality does not necessarily correlate with a discography. American Youth Symphony and America's Hot Musician are not ripe enough for addition at this time. 10:00, 3 October 2006 bethbar5

"Not ripe enough" meaning "not actually broadcast" I assume? A websearch reveals the show is only set to debut next year. This is getting ridiculous: you're suggesting he's important because of something he's done that hasn't even yet taken place (i.e. the future broadcast of a show). This is precisely why the page reeked of self-promotion. --ND 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Duh and you have a problem with that? You obviously have a bone to pick at any cost. Why would a page go up on a show that hasn't yet aired?...And correction, YOU are suggesting he is not important merely because he has a career of playing with major productions,bands and musicians in addition to social music educational work...Your suggestion is more ridiculous. Accordingly, I vote to close this circular "discussion" out TODAY.... 12:41 , 3 October, 2006 bethbar5

• Delete, unless the claims are sourced and the puffiness is toned down. Can't verify the supposed LA Times and WaPo feature articles. ~ trialsanderrors 08:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

articles dates are being added today. Have tentatively added the years and months. Wash Post article about his career , Art Blakey relationship, Master's graduation from Howard and concert with Geri Allen as sideman and LA Times about his Game show pilot Pick Up 6 (not listed in this article)bethbar5 10:09, 6 October 2006

Requested Source Information

1.Washington Post "Show" section Sunday October 6, 1991 title "Limelight: Jazzman Gregory Charles Royal" by Dana Thomas includes photo, refernce to relationship with Art Blakey and upcoming concert with Geri Allen as sideman.

2.Los Angeles Times "Valley" section Tuesday, February 11, 1997 title"The Prince of the Pickup Picks Up the Pieces" by Scott Harris includes story about Royal's move to Los Angeles and his Game Show pilot.

3. Afro American Newspaper December 1, 1979 title "18-year-old trombonist produces, records album" by Roger Glass includes story about Royal's life and album personnel which included Geri Allen as sideman.

4. Downbeat Student Recording Honors http://www.coas.howard.edu/music/HUJE/awards.htm Royal Outstanding Performance and Larry Seals and Roger Woods both won performing compositions by Royal- "Dream Come True" and "Before You"

5. Black Radio Exclusive Magazine (BRE) May 15, 1992 title GCR Records: The Royal Famiy by Terry Muggleton includes story about Royal's label, new release and educational views

5. Various Concert/recording Reviews, blurbs Mike Joyce, W. Royal Stokes,Zan Stewart BRE Magazine, Jet Magazine

6. Pick Up Six Game Show TV Guide listing Nov-8-14 (Los Angeles) Wed/Early Thur. 2am Channel 13 UPN KCOP #83771

7. Neilson Los Angeles Overnight Ratings Wednesday November 12, 1997 Pick Up 6 Game Show Rating 1.5 with an 11 share.

8. Royal's Broadway Credits at http://www.ibdb.com/person.asp?ID=100371

9. Royal's work on Arsenio Hall Show (1992), Tony Awards (1992), Universal Pictures release Life(1999) -American Federtion of Musicians Los Angeles and New York locals

10. Art Blakey Performances, Blues Alley Wash DC -Winter 1978 , Anacostia Park Wash.,DC Spring 1978, Village Gate NYC-Summer 1978, Village Vanguard NYC Summer 1978, live radio broadcast Dino's Philadelphia Fall 1978 Wallace Roney present.

11. It's a Hardbop Life links http://www.wbgo.org/events/calendar/?caldate=10/23/2004

12. Royal links with top musicians Royal lead the JJ Johnson Tribute at Birdland NYC in 2001 http://www.trombone.org/events/viewevents.asp?EventID=115

Royal lead the weekly Art Blakey Jazz Messengers Revue at Birdland NYC in 2001 http://www.nypress.com/14/28/listings/musiclists.cfm

13. RPM Magazine Volume 62 No. 10 October 9, 1995 chart position (page 6) and review (page 20)for Ariel produced and written by Royal 13:47 6, October 2006 bethbar5

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of laptops using Core 2 Duo

Many of the laptops listed are not using Core 2 Duo; no sources cited; not even a wikified list; doesn't really add anything of great value (perhaps if there were pages for the laptop mentioned, "Category:Laptops using core 2 duo" might be useful). --PdDemeter 16:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Yamla 16:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination - fchd 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. Salad Days 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My First try to edit a wiki page but anyway here wt I did so far

1) I have added links to brands model pages for a number of brands till now

2) Sorted Brands by Brand name

3) Subcategorized Brand into model categories as in global site of the brand

4) updated list if needed (removing non core 2 if found [only 1 found so far] & adding new core 2 laptops if found )

5) adding bulletining for better layout

Anyway it needs more work so work isn’t finish , current work include

1) adding new brands as Gateway & others

2) Updating remaining lists

Estimated time remaining : less than 3 days

Estimated finish date : 3/10/2006

GamerXp 07:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 07:13, 1 October 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People_to_People

This page has the same material as People to People Student Ambassador Program and the wording was taken from a prior edit so it is not as well written. In addition, it was created as a fork in order to bypass ongoing discussion on the primary page for this organization after several removals of sourced material. Markovich292 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete then Redirect to People to People Student Ambassador Program. Markovich292 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but with heavy reorganization, perhaps even renaming. People to People International is clearly an organization that covers many different things where the People to People Student Ambassador Program is just one aspect of that organization. The current P2P-Student Ambassador article is jumbling several ideas and organizations together as if they were the same thing. An unfortunate side effect here is that an attempt to make an NPOV article (or series of articles here, as may be the case) is also spilling into other trollish behavior due to several individuals espousing POV edits on these articles. --Robert Horning 19:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but change to disambiguation page for People to People Student Ambassador Program and People to People International. Markovich292 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Since there is enough material to create seperate articles for "People to People International" and "People to People Student Ambassador Programs," this page may function better as a disambiguation page (as both organizations are referred to as simply "People to People"). That way, Mr. Horning's concerns about confusing the two groups will be clearly addressed. Markovich292 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree. Each page should describe the relationship of the organization it's describing to the other organization, and each page should link to the other. Mark Rosenthal 03:00, 2 October 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 to Allura Red AC The Literate Engineer 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FD&C RED No. 40 ALUMINUM LAKE

Very little content, no sources and very POV Wjousts 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Notice that we have a real article on this food colourant at Allura Red AC. Uncle G 16:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. Stubbleboy 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Allura Red AC. Better than deleting!Obina 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Allura Red AC but create a subsection in that article for the "Aluminum Lake" variant. wikipediatrix 00:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect seems the clear path here. Michael Kinyon 17:27, 28 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. W.marsh 19:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snap Technologies

"Snap Technologies" CMS -wikipedia gets under 900 Googles, of which 132 unique Technologies%22 %2Bcms -wikipedia. Monograph of single purpose account TAG2010 (talk • contribs). No evidence of meetign WP:SOFTWARE, some evidence of not meeting WP:CORP (private company, unstated size). Guy 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably doesn't meet WP:CORP. Website has an Alexa Web Traffic ranking of 482,389. --Nishkid64 01:25, 17 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, Mangojuice^talk 15:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Stubbleboy 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Keep, giving TAG2010 benefit of the doubt and hoping to see future edits in other unrelated areas. JonHarder 00:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete, Keep TAG2010 14:33, 02 October 2006 (UTC) Given that I work for Snap Technologies and my opinion is only one of many, here are some relevant facts so the community can decide. WP:SOFTWARE Snap Technologies is one of only 29 vendors and the only CMS provider that has Authorized Preferred Vendor status with Sage_Software. Sage Software chose Snap Technologies to provide the SnapTech CMS to over 3000 Sage Partners in North America. Re: Google. Snap recently rebranded their name, logo, website, etc. so Google results declined as a result. WP:CORP Re: Publications. The SnapTech Website Guide is widely distributed and is used as a resource by the American_Marketing_Association www.cville-ama.org/WebsiteGuide.pdf As well, Snap Technologies will be profiled in an article on website productivity in the upcoming issue of Backbone Magazine [[42]]. The content of the article is neutral and I believe it complies with Wikipedia criteria. As far as being a single user account, I plead guilty (so far) but I intend to contribute more in the future.
• Comment As a consensus when you don't want something deleted you call it "keep". Futhermore, you would know that had you not come here just to promote the company you work for by creating an article for them. Stubbleboy 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a failure of WP:CORP; I am very tempted to apply the newly expanded spam speedy deleteion template.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:29, 4 October 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 speedy delete. Punkmorten 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Alan Johnson

Non-notable individual, with an obvious vanity page. No verifiable references, doesn't meet WP:BIO, and has multiple WP:BLP violations. Other attempts at deletion have been unsuccessful, as the template just gets removed. Recommend speedy deletion. Elonka 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete the article and the images. No assertion of notability. Pan Dan 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious vanity page. - Triviaa 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, and since the nom recommended a speedy deletion I'll add that this shouldn't even have come to AFD, just slap a speedy tag on it (CSD A-7) --Mnemeson 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried a prod, but the template just got removed by an anon.[43] So there was no choice but to AFD. --Elonka 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, db-bio. wikipediatrix 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, db-bio should have been done at the start. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:33, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo3forum.com

Article is advertising for non-notable forum Wildthing61476 16:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Might change my mind if reliable sources are provided to verify that this meets WP:WEB. VoiceOfReason 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prod was removed with no explanation or articel improvement. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A web forum has to be mighty special to earn an article, and I'm not seeing any evidence of such. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 23:02, 28 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 WP:POINT. kingboyk 23:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles trivia

WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:LC, WP:LIST etc... Trivia Information. see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madonna_trivia060916 and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keane_trivia--Td6c 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article was up for deletion a short time ago, and it survived. (16 July 2006 [44] ) Why is it under threat of deletion again? --andreasegde 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article certainly shouldn't be deleted, as it contains a wealth of material which is actually quite useful and beyond trivial. Funnily enough, it's actually a pretty good article! I agree that the "good" material ought to be farmed out to other articles, or this one renamed, but that can't happen if it's zapped. Also, the article serves as a tremendous pressure valve for the main The Beatles article which otherwise gets filled with every fact our many anon visitors can throw at it. Finally, your quoting of precedent is extremely one-sided. This article has previously survived AFDs as have other articles with "trivia" in the title. --kingboyk 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Dennisthe2 19:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the main problem with this article is that the bulk of it isn't trivia, it's genuinely useful information of the type that people could easily come here for. That said, I'm not sure what else it could be called. To compare it to the Keane trivia article which contained such nuggets as "they love food" is a tad unfair.Ac@osr 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note - the user account that created this AfD only seems to exist for the purpose of submitting AfDs, and of the four that have been submitted, consensus thus far has been keep. --Dennisthe2 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Aha. That would be a disgruntled user who had their own trivia article deleted then. I'll close this as a violation of WP:POINT and block them. --kingboyk 23:52, 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 Keep WP:POINT. kingboyk 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd trivia

Trivia articles--Td6c 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article too long to merge. Why not rename?  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I can't really bring myself to say delete. --Dennisthe2 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not quite as strong as The Beatles trivia article also up for deletion but still has some good non-trivial information. "Trivia" just isn't the right word; how about miscellany? Ac@osr 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note - the user account that created this AfD only seems to exist for the purpose of submitting AfDs, and of the four that have been submitted, consensus thus far has been keep. --Dennisthe2 21:24, 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 Keep WP:POINT. kingboyk 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed trivia

Trivia articles--Td6c 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - All the Trivia articles went through this already only a couple months ago, and most of them (including this one) survived it. What has changed since then? --Maelwys 17:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - the user account only seems to exist for the purpose of submitting AfDs, and of the four that have been submitted, consensus thus far has been keep. --Dennisthe2 21:23, 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 Speedy delete (by another admin); article was then recreated for the third time; I again speedied and then protected against recreation. NawlinWiki 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quillan Stone

Unknown poet, repeatedly removing speedy tags so brought here for definitive decision. NawlinWiki 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless some notability is demonstrated. Natalie 17:03, 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.