Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 11

< March 10	March 12 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:WikiProject reform User-warning templates strawpoll Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability Wikipedia:Article inclusion Wikipedia:Credentials Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines Draft unified account policy Broad community discussion on the status of Wikipedia:Attribution
Conclusions

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

The result was semi-speedy delete. – Steel 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Over the Hedge 2 characters

This page is pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DreamWorks has not announced anything about a sequel to Over the Hedge yet. FMAFan1990 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. We're not ready for this yet. Big top 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--TBCΦtalk? 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete- not even an Over The Hedge 2 page yet. Most characters do not have a page on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Might be fine to repro when the film is out/sourceable. - Denny 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete No need for this yet as it hasn't come out yet, and little is known about it. It should be recreated after the films release however. --IvanKnight69 10:08, 11 March 2007 (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 list. There has been some dissent that a category would be too hard to define; this discussion, if someone wants to follow it through, should take place in the appropriate venue, which isn't AfD.

Noting the large amount of support in turning this listed into a category, I will be happy to restore this article temporarily in userspace for any user (in good standing, ie. who will not simply move it back to mainspace) who wishes to go through the list and add an appropriate category. Please contact me on my user talk page, linking to this discussion, or if I'm busy to any other administrator (and point to this comment). This is especially directed at TonyTheTiger (who noted below a request to do this); please ask when you're absolutely ready to categorise it immediately, to avoid a deleted article hanging around in userspace forever. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of diss songs

I feel it may have been too soon for another AfD (the first one was at the end of February), but the article was recently prod'ed and while I don't care much either way about the topic, I didn't think a prod was the way to go. I'm Neutral on this discussion. JuJube 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The topic is a bit broad; possibly better suited as a category than a list.--TBCΦtalk? 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Questionable value to me, so I'll be neutral on that. It should definitely be a category instead of a list, however. Autocracy 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I have no idea how this passed a first AfD. There is no established criteria, no sourcing, no commentary, no explanation. It is, franky, a random list of songs. Indiscriminate, unmaintainable, undefined. Resolute 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dizzlete per Resolute. I'm opposed to TBC's solution as there are no objective criteria for what falls into this category. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should Category:Diss songs—created last year by User:Rebelduder69—be CFD'd then? Personally I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the subject.--TBCΦtalk? 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete There's no criteria and any criteria given would be subjective. AniMate 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - and replace with a category. - Richard Cavell 02:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete I actually think there is value in such a list. And given one of the first pieces of info one would want about a diss song is "who was dissed?", I can see why it would be helpful to have it as a list rather than a category. But I don't see a way around the issues of sourcing and objective criteria. Mwelch 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, weak delete. There is so much information on the page detailing numerous songs that I can't simply say "get rid of it." Of course there's no ignoring the fact that it violates policy.--NPswimdude500 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete and make into a category. Natalie 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and turn into a category. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above. This is original research, and cannot be maintained. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The definition/explanation at Diss song does not appear to be WP:Attributable to a reliable external source. As such, there is no reliable inclusion criteria for this list. The content is unscourced and unverified, and at this point in time, I do not see how many (if any) of the entries in the list can be sourced. -- saberwyn 09:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I would be willing to support a deletion of the category and/or the Diss song article if either was brought up, for the above reasoning. -- saberwyn 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above, make into a category. - Denny 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and make into a category. Gan fon 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. --Mhking 17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The number of items on the list attests to the importance of such songs to modern culture. I think the list should exist somewhere. It would be a bear to source and maintain, but there are published sources that refer to these things, and sometimes interviews with artists or the lyrics themselves. I'm not volunteering, but I'd hate to see this completely deleted.--Parsleyjones 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as I said last time, this list is too arbitrary in scope and the entries are unsourced.-- danntm ^T _C 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Don't quite think it should be made into a category, because, as the article, many entries are unsourced and some songs could be diss songs without implying that openly, or vice-versa. Either way, the article definitely doesn't belong here. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Listify There is a lot of great information in this article. It should be saved in some format. Please listify if deleted. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, this user has been canvassing to users who have contributed to this article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply my postings were neutral (your voice is needed does not indicate in support or object preference), bipartisan (all registered users who have contributed to the article), and limited (in the hundreds and hundreds of WP:AFDs I have been involved in over the past several months I have never before informed more than 1 or 2 interested parties). It passes as a friendly notice and not canvassing. Please see instructions below regarding closure of this debate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Exclusively targeting those who have contributed to the article and therefore may have a stake in it does not strike me as being bipartisan. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What does he mean by "listify"? Isn't it already a list? JuJube 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. There are several more diss songs out nowadays, and we need a reliable source for the list. I think it is too notable. Besides, I thought Wikipedia is not paper. Tom Danson 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOT. M.G. In Da Hizzhouse 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Where to begin . . . Not encyclopedic, fails WP:V, WP:NOR and possibly WP:NPOV, for starters. No list, no category, no shizzle my nizzle -- just delete. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, also agree this fails Verifiability, Reliable sources, and No original research - and much of this unsourced material could be potentially libelous as well. Cricket02 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Better suited as a category. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; I agree with TBC and ʍαμ$ʏ5043, this is better suited as a category. fhb3 10:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete While I attempted to add sources I feel the list in not manageable. There exists far too many songs and not enough verifiable sources for them. A category should be made to better contain "the list." A category however will obviously be missing much valuable information. The who portion will be lost. --RapPhenom 13:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Useless fancruft in my opinion. RobJ1981 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If this list is deleted either move it to a subpage of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject hip hop or userfy it to a subpage of my user page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not to diss the authors here but it doesn't even attempt to pass inclusion criteria - unsourced, unverifiable, original research. Arkyan 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, fails {{WP:V]], WP:OR, and so on and so forth. Wikipedia isn't wastepaper, either. RGTraynor 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The list is too long. There are too many diss songs to make them into a list
Keep, just needs sourcing. There are plenty of articles about hiphop which would mention who is dissing who in which song, so I don't see whats unverifiable about it. The current version is original research (although not any more than any article on TV episodes; it is just listening to the songs and saying who gets dissed) but it just needs cleanup, not deletion. Not a suitable topic for a category, as it needs sourcing which categories don't allow for. Recury 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Man, that was tough. I had to, like, type stuff into google to find sources for anything. Recury 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP I am not really a pro wikipedia editer but I often referr to this list for projects or for personal references. In all honesty, all that would be gained by deleting this page is a sense of "organization". It is really not worth deleting this. BTW my profile is OOORBJOO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.193.12 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Delete or make into a category HeckXX 23:48, 14 March 2007 (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 keep. Closing per WP:DPR as the nominator has decided to withdrawn the AfD.--TBCΦtalk? 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cronos (Robot)

WITHDRAW AFD Given the emerging consensus here, I will be WP:BOLD and start merging and redirecting the articles together. The new page can be seen here List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) (in progress) EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Last year, an AfD tried to delete a number of articles about individual robots from the UK series of Robot Wars. Result was No Consensus, as it was thought some had notability (i.e. winners of series). Another AfD was suggested with a smaller batch of more obviously less notable robots. Today, many more articles have been created by a new user; these articles are often unsourced, have no context, or need rewriting. Some are about robots which fought one single bout and lost, never to be seen again. I would've thought using the 'reality show contestant' theory, these are therefore non-notable. This is a small batch to begin with, more (there are a lot) will be nominated if this AfD decides on deletion. (Or alternatively, if the decision is Redirect I will redirect all the non-notable ones in one go).

I am also nominating the following related pages:

EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect all to Robot Wars.--TBCΦtalk? 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect all per above. The one sentince descriptions of each robot works better in the main article. Resolute 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect all except for IG-88 (robot), as there's already a robot with that name to whom that real estate better applies. Either delete IG-88 (Robot) or point it at IG-88 with a brief mention -- MAYBE and only with a source -- of the Robot Wars bot. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Which brings up another point - there are no dab page entries for a lot of these articles either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect Per all above. Gan fon 17:41, 11 March 2007 (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesut Kurtis

The article does not assert any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. He appears to only have one album and there is no reference to any songs charting or references for significant media coverage or national tours. Nv8200p talk 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ATT, as there are no sources to verify notability. Nor was there anything relevant found when searching Google News, allmusic, MP3.com or even Amazon.com.--TBCΦtalk? 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
KEEP Why would you delete an article like this. The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. This is actually a relatively long article. What would anybody accomplish by deleting it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.170.194 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 Mar 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ILIKEIT, Wikipedia is not for truth or fact but for verifiability, don't spam AFD. --Iamunknown 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can barely find anything on this performer - definitely not verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete. I'm not sure what search engines eveyone is using, here are the 27000+ returns on artist name and style, 80000+ returns on just name and an Amazon page on the artist. However, I have no idea if any are reliable sources. If someone does add some sources before the end of the AfD i will reconsider. Nuttah68 15:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's strange. Kurtis seems to show up on Amazon UK but not on Amazon.com.--TBCΦtalk? 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability. --Mus Musculus 18:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. The guy's music is on Rhapsody, E-music and iTunes, and I don't suppose it's hugely unusual that a Macedonian folk singer isn't getting NY Times reviews. Let's not go completely US-centric here. RGTraynor 18:46, 12 March 2007 (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 as non-notable organization. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Twain Productions

No sources, this group appears to be a high school club that makes films. I suggest that we delete it unless cited, verifiable content can be added. Right now, I can't tell the jokes from the real content - they list Chuck Norris as a cast member, for example. GTBacchus^(talk) 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete I've watched the links to their Youtube content. As far as WP:N, you've simply got to be kidding me. Autocracy 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not for film clubs made up in high school one day.--TBCΦtalk? 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The Chuck Norris as a cast member was IP user vandalism just before the AfD was posted Autocracy 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 01:38, 11 March 2007 (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, obviously. If the article is really bad but on a valid topic, we don't delete it we just remove the crud. User:Reywas92 has volunteered to clean it up. Although I participated in the debate, consensus is as clear as day here and there's no point keeping the debate open any longer. Any further comments should be addressed at improving the article, on Talk:23 (numerology) kingboyk 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23 (numerology)

Horribly unreferenced pseudoscience, a similar list of occurrences could probably just as easily be tied to any other number. The WP:LEAD is rambling and speculative, however removing the problem parts would leave it meaningless. Previous attempts to solve the issues with this have either been ineffective or were little more than sweeping it under the carpet (e.g. forking it from 23 (number)). In summary, with the OR and V issues, not to mention the use of weasel terms, this article is now beyond help. Chris cheese whine 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Anyone that may be considering "Keep and cleanup" recommendations shoud check the article and talk history, also read this. It has been to cleanup already, to no avail. Chris cheese whine 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Notable number in numerology which has been referenced in numerous literary works (the writings of William Burroughs and Robert Anton Wilson, for a start), not to mention inspiring a major film only a few weeks ago. The article needs to be expanded and sources added, etc., but I feel the topic is notable enough to be kept. Content issues can be addressed at the article level. PS I have read the above noted and have discounted it. That's still a content issue, and not an issue as to whether this article has a place in Wikipedia. I say it does. All the note above did was make me change my opinion from "keep" to "strong keep". 23skidoo 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you are in effect saying "I don't believe this article is in a fit state, but we should keep it anyway"? Chris cheese whine 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, yes, the rule is, even if an article is in abysmally poor condition, if there's something of merit to the subject, it's better to keep and improve it. Now it might be worthwhile to blank it in this case, but I don't know that I see a problem with the edit history being kept. Something like libel or copyvio would be grounds for deletion, but I don't know that that's true. Mister.Manticore 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove all the useless trivia from both the 23 (numerology) and 23 (number) articles, then merge the two together.--TBCΦtalk? 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep But I would suggest in-line citations for this to keep out original research. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but continue to clean with a firehose. I took out the pop culture references that didn't make explicit reference to the numerological significance of 23 and encourage others to plug away at directly sourcing unsourced content remaining in the article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I believe, as I stated on the talk page, that the occurances on 23 (number) and this (including some good which has been deleted and is in history) should be merged onto this article with major trimming of unimportant occurances. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will accept your argument on the strict condition that you agree to personally take up the task of verifying that every single prospective entry is a specific reference to the "enigma", and not merely coincidence (per WP:NOT#IINFO). Chris cheese whine 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I find this a rather interesting topic and I will take this up. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - They've made two movies about this number, so it's clearly notable. It doesn't matter if an article is hard to keep clean, and thinking an article should be kept implies no responsibility beyond truly believing an article should be kept. - Peregrine Fisher 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep No article about a reasonable subject is beyond help. Since this subject has received some attention, it needs to be covered. I wouldn't mind merging it somewhere, but this seems like a content dispute, not a reason to delete. Lots of articles on Wikipedia are difficult to write, some attract the attention of some less than reasonable folks. It's the nature of Wikipedia, which will not be written in a day. Mister.Manticore 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article may be poor, but the subject is not. It can be verified. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sourceable, notable enough. - Denny 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The number 23 is notable due to it's presence in movies, several secret societies and other notable areas. It may well be a pseudoscience as mentioned, but this does not mean it isn't notable. Poeloq 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It might not be a great article but it's a valid topic. Somebody speedy close this please? --kingboyk 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that the article is garbage, and sympathize with the plea of the nominator, but frustration over cleaning up an article is not a reason to delete it. At the very least, it can be turned into a stub with whatever information can be verified, and then started over. --Mus Musculus 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per discussion. All hail Eris. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 18:33, 11 March 2007 (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 speedied as obvious hoax. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Picker

Tried prod, it was removed. Unfortunately it doesn't meet any CSD requirements as notability is claimed, etc and obvious hoaxes don't meet CSD requirements. 1) The Stig in 2002 has previously been revealed as Perry McCarthy. 2) A world class 13 year old race driver would be easily verifiable. As I can't find anything to verify this [1]. 3) The article was started by User:Picker34, probably just some kid making a joke. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as an obvious hoax. A 17-year old, Olympic classed racing driver who survived a crash that "broke his pelvis in two"? You've got to be kidding me. --TBCΦtalk? 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The only David Picker that comes up in a Google search for "David Picker racing" is a reporter for the New York Times. Stebbins 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious hoax. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete joke/hoax. Resolute 01:36, 11 March 2007 (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 Kill Switch...Klick. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 12:36Z

[edit] Go-Kustom Films

This article was created by the owner of the Go-Kustom Films. Notability is not established and sources are not provided. No Opinion at this time. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) •

Merge to Kill Switch...Klick. The band might be notable, but this is certaintly not.--TBCΦtalk? 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability. ~~The relationship to Kill Switch is for Go-Kustom Records. This person's film project has no relationship at all with Kill Switch.~~ Resolute 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Go-Kustom Films does have a relationship with the band, as it was created by the members of Kill Switch...Klick.--TBCΦtalk? 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Ahh. I would have thought that the creator would have mentioned this in the article, as it is the closest thing there is to notability. Still not enough though. Resolute 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Resolute, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Stebbins 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- Doesn't seem to be notable. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry, but a scholarly search turns up no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Kill Switch...Klick per agreement with TBC.--JUDE ^talk 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Google search returns 62 unique of about 124 total, many Wikipedia mirrors or blogs. Non-notable. MikeWazowski 07:15, 14 March 2007 (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 me as a near-verbatim copy of a webpage that asserts copyright. - Richard Cavell 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Teuber

This page has copyright violation issues which need to be addressed if the page is to survive (see talk page for further discussion). There are also questions as to whether this individual is sufficiently notable. Because the latter question is potentially nuanced, I am moving it from speedy deletion to AfD for community review. I take no stance on the issue. Closing admin: please make sure that copyvio issues are fully dealt with if the article is to be kept; right now it's in a sort of copyright twilight zone with permission from the orginal author but no explicit GFDL release from the original source material. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G12, a copyvio of Teuber's home page. There's a chance that User:Teuber might be Andreas Teuber, but as of now there's no way for us to confirm that. --TBCΦtalk? 02:06, 11 March 2007 (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 speedied as nn-bio. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David 'Rat' Pitsock

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable person. John254 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - It is unfortunate that an article like this must be AFD'd because someone removes the speedy.. Article unreferenced, zero notability. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 01:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:55, 11 March 2007 (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 both. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League

These organizations seem rather non notable. AniMate 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Hockey League as it is part of this non notable organization. AniMate 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy~~ delete ~~per CSD A7, as the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.~~ Seems someone has expanded the article. Even so, there are still no sources or references to verify the notability of the league.--TBCΦtalk? 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per TBC. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete both per above. MER-C 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
weak keep both because the author should be given time to find sources. And nobody notified the author. There are enough Yeshivas in NYC that there might very well be a notable league, so the nom should perhaps have checked first. If still unsourced in 5 days, then delete.DGG 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Google hits aren't the only yardstick we measure notability by, but I found a total of 18 hits for Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League and a total of 1,740 hits when adding in the Hockey League. AniMate 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've notified all three people who have contributed to the articles. AniMate 06:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regular Slow Delete. I declined CSD, notability is asserted. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. - Denny 09:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Normal Delete - I live in Houston, Texas, so I don't know anything about this place. I just rewrote the page in a better style. Nickelodeon Rocks, the original writer of this page, has unofficially left Wikipedia, and hasn't made an edit for a week or two now. Anyway, this page is confusing & hard to follow, and contains some POVs. It seems in bad shape enough to delete. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; not notable. --Mhking 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep because this is notable and connected with other articles in Category:Jewish day schools and Category:Modern Orthodox Judaism and it fits into Category:High school sports associations in the United States with Catholic High School Athletic Association a sub-category of Category:High school sports in the United States with New York Catholic High School Athletic Association. No offense, but just because non-Jews have not heard of these things does not make it "non-notable." IZAK 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per IZAK - there seems to be a precedent for secondary school leagues having articles here. I would like to see a list of involved schools in the article so a sense of scope and context exists. --Mus Musculus 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per IZAK and precedent regarding schools. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Mus Musculus is incorrect. The precedent is, in fact, for articles on the umbrella organizations for high school athletics within an entire state, and I am all for winnowing out those articles for smaller, splinter subgroups; I'm quite comfy with giving the CHSAA the heaveho too. That aside, no offense, IZAK, but just because something is known to a small percentage of Jews (sorry, that's a "small percentage of Jews interested in high school sports and living in the metro NYC area") doesn't make it "notable." The notability standards, as far as I understand them, have little to do with Judaism. RGTraynor 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Are there off-line sources that someone familiar with the topic could reference in the article? --Shirahadasha 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per RGtraynor. JoshuaZ 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep MYHSL, Merge/Redirect Hockey league to MYHSL. Size, scope and nature of league makes it notable. Article needs to be expanded to include history and other relevant information. Alansohn 06:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
delete Non-trivial mention of the the league in the press somewhere, in an article that establishes its importance to people outside the geographic area, should establish notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:07, 16 March 2007 (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 nuke. DS 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan D. Schwartz

After some serious searching, I can't find anything about this person. He wrote books but I can't find any reference to them. He was a PHD in nuclear engineering but I can't find any papers written by him. He is alleged to have committed suicide in 1973 as a result of Three Mile Island accident but that didn't occur until 1979. Article was written by anonymous author. I suggest hoax or some sort of error. Glendoremus 02:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Only 8 hits on Google, none appear relevant. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a possible hoax.--TBCΦtalk? 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Either a hoax or non-notable. Date discrepancy suggests the former. WjBscribe 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- Possible hoax, since I can't really find anything on Google which says he's a nuclear physicist. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, definite hoax. Certainly he was not a famous nuclear physicist, assuming he even existed. The only hits for his name on Google News Archive and Google Books refer to obviously different people. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:A Alf^Photoman 15:29, 11 March 2007 (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. Lexicon (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of communists

Delete We already have categories that are more suited to listing things like this. There is not a single cited source. The page is just begging to be vandalised (see the edit by User:66.131.228.205, "huh huh let's list our teacher"). AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Because I wasn't clear before, there is already a category to cover this Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, subject of the list is too broad.--TBCΦtalk? 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Way too broad, open to POV problems as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. And while you're at it, delete List of anarchists, List of Trotskyists, List of left communists, and especially List of socialists and its subpages. This is why we have categories. Stebbins 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, lists are preferable for controversial attributions, as they can be sourced in the article and because of the value of redlinks. There is increasing pressure to remove all categories that refer to political affiliation, and that leaves us with nothing at all to organize articles. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Can you provide evidence for this? Stebbins 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_28#Category:Ideological_publications, for one. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Thank you for elaborating. However, I believe that the definitions of political affiliations such as "liberal" and "conservative" are far more vague -- or at least far more controversial -- than the definitions of ideologies such as "communist", "anarchist", &c. Also, the arguments made against political categories (they are controversial/POV) can be applied equally as well to political lists. If we have to choose between keeping a list or keeping a category, I think that a category is the better choice. Stebbins 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and probably turn into a category. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Already a very well developed category: Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; along with the other lists of the type of people of the day categories, this should be made into a category. --Mhking 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, better served by a category. --Dennisthe2 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep for Dhartung's excellent points. Noroton 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Dhartung - a list lends itself much better to potentially controversial inclusions. A category is by no means the same as a list, nor can it serve the same purpose. --Mus Musculus 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Having a category is not a reason to delete a list, both are useful. The category has no context, making it difficult to find the person your looking for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Stebbins. Someone show me a definition of "communist" that will pass consensus, then show me how it applies to everyone on that list. These lists gather names like piers gather barnacles. RGTraynor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unmaintainable list with unqualified inclusion criteria Alf^Photoman 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. This "article" is an excellent example of why I gave up on the Wikipedia project months ago. How is this supposed to be useful? It is redundant to the category. Certainly, one could claim that the list could include information which a category could not convey--but it isn't being used like that, so it makes no difference. This is just more pointless listcruft. People like to contribute to these lists because doing so requires very little time or effort, but I have yet to see evidence that people actually find such lists useful. And, really, how useful can a list where Brecht and Brezhnev are lumped together possibly be? ergot 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unmaintainable AND superfluoous. --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 15 March 2007 (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 (A7) by Swatjester (Peripitus (Talk) 10:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] GEWar

Non-notable entery. Fails WP:WEB Cman 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No sources to verifiy notability. Nor was anything relevant found after searching through Google News, IGN, or Gamespot. --TBCΦtalk? 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Possibly nominate Google Earth Hacks (the website which originally hosted this webgame) for deletion as well.--TBCΦtalk? 03:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. Stebbins 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Fails sources. Wickethewok 06:22, 11 March 2007 (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. CSD A7. kingboyk 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hippie Jihad

I could find no mention of this band in any reliable internet sources (only ~120 Google hits). According to the article itself, they were formed only last year and are only performing around Knoxville, Tennessee. It therefore seems highly doubtful that they meet WP:MUSIC. Stebbins 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Clear failure of WP:BAND. WjBscribe 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Nothing relevant found on Google News, Amazon.com, MP3.com, or allmusic.--TBCΦtalk? 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
KEEP Just because a band isn't that popular yet doesn't mean you should delete their article. I read the article. It is actually a good and long article. What would anybody accomplish by deleting it? What is the point? The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.170.194 (talk • contribs).
- See WP:ILIKEIT.--TBCΦtalk? 03:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's not difficult to write good, long articles about non-notable people or things that someone would like or think was interesting. That's not sufficient criteria. Mwelch 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nowhere near enough outside info to be verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. If they ever become notable, then a page can be made on them. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for everything that might be famous later; see WP:Crystal. The article isn't even long or well written, as 24.126.170.194 implies. - Pious7 17:17, 11 March 2007 (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mambo (swahili)

del Non-english dicdef. Although I am inclined to believe it is a hoax (you know mambo/jambo, mumbo-jumbo...) Shall we have articles about words in all languages of the world? Guten Tag, Konnichi wa, Privetik, Witam panstwo, Zdravstvuyte, Zdorovenki buly, Labas rytas, Terve, Bon giorno, Buna ziua,.... `'mikka 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--TBCΦtalk? 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef and can't see how the article could ever amount to more. WjBscribe 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep This article is more than a simple dictionary definition (in fact the word, as do many greetings Ciao Whassup? seems to have different meanings depending on context, perfect for an encyclopedia article. The article makes references to pop culture and to another wikipedia article on a similar Swahili greeting Jambo. It could use more information to make it similar to other articles in, but it is a nice start and should not be deleted. Scarykitty 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is English langauge encyclopedia. Not to say your argument "different meanings depending on context" is exactly what dictionaries for. `'mikka 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep As far as I can tell this article is truthful. As to what to do with it, Jambo appears to be an incorrect usage be non Swahilli speakers in situations where Mambo should be used. So it appears we have a number of options, we can keep both, redirect Jambo to Mambo and explain the incorrect usage or redirect Mambo to Jambo as the more widely known in English even if it is incorrect. Personally, I defer to anyone who understands Swahilli to suggest the most suitable option. Nuttah68 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is English-language encyclopedia, not a dictionary or textbook of Swahili language. `'mikka 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Truthful ≠ encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a Swahili dictionary.--TBCΦtalk? 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep for dab purposes. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify how it would be used for disambiguation purposes? This could affect my (as yet ungiven) vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is dictionary content, no more. The only source is a dictionary. A disambig page can link to wiktionary - there is not reason to make an article out of it. --Mus Musculus 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See. Ciao, What's up, Ave - Latin, Shalom aleichem - Hebrew, Sat Sri Akaal - Hindi. Maybe this article's not "quite there" yet, but given the number of foreign language greetings that HAVE evolved into nice articles. Scarykitty 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC
  - Know nothing about Sat Sri Akaal, but ciao and shalom are quite frequently encountered in English speech (and in other languages, btw, like German, Polish of Russian), which qualifies them for English wikipedia. `'mikka 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this is exactly a dictionary definition -- Whpq 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Quite possibly (though I'm awaiting proof of the same) this word has a rich melange of meanings in Swahili, and on the Swahili Wikipedia it might have a place. If the word had an article on the Swahili Wikipedia, which it doesn't. I see no reason why this dicdef should have one here instead. RGTraynor 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, agree, this is for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.--Aldux 16:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per mikka's comment Captain panda In vino veritas 02:18, 15 March 2007 (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 keep ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia

Non notable. Notability insufficient.Rainbowwarrior1976 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — Rainbowwarrior1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep (almost speedily) - passes WP:WEB. No valid reason for deletion. MER-C 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Looking through the nominator's contributions (especially his comments about Essjay, who was coincidentally hired by Wikia), this article seems to have been nominated in bad faith.--TBCΦtalk? 03:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Notability is obvious. Stebbins 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Bad faith nom by single purpose account. Clearly notable. WjBscribe 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep Very notable, with connections to this website. Passes WP:WEB Retiono Virginian 14:12, 11 March 2007 (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 Gnan garra 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising by Westpac

Nothing notable about the advertising campaign of a bank MrMonroe 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; very few advertising campaigns have the notability to warrant inclusion in WP --Mhking 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Westpac. Not notable enough to merit a seperate article.--TBCΦtalk? 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by author of article about nomination If you check out MrMonroe's edit history, you'll notice that it is dominated by only a few articles. In fact, he's only made edits to do with Andrew Bolt for the past month, apart from this nomination. I suspect it is not coincidence that he's nominated an article by someone who has disagreed with him about the Andrew Bolt article. Andjam 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please assume good faith when encountering possible bad faith. Also, please avoid "biting" newcomers.--TBCΦtalk? 03:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment MrMonroe is not a newbie, and his interactions with others (eg this) suggest that I'm not jumping to conclusions about bad faith. Andjam 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're making a fallacious ad hominem argument here. Even if what you say is true, the AfD nomination is valid. Stebbins 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~No, I'm making a valid ad hominem argument. But I've seperated the issue of whether the article should be deleted from whether the AfD was done in good faith. Andjam 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)~~
    - You shouldn't be making any ad hominem argument. Concentrate on the issue at hand (ie the notability of the article) and not on the past disputes of the nominator. --TBCΦtalk? 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by author of article about the article It was written while I was working on Australia at the Winter Olympics, which is a featured article. Andjam 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can't claim notability vicariously. Stebbins 03:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - It was more of a note than a vote, but why can't I claim notability vicariously? Andjam 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Just because one article is notable does not mean that all related articles are notable. The featured status of Australia at the Winter Olympics is irrelevant to this AfD discussion.Stebbins 04:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Makes no claim to notability. If it did, I may be tempted to vote for a merge, per TBC. Stebbins 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete--cj | talk 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Response from nominee: Andjam is suffering a serious case of paranoia. I nominated the article for deletion because of the reasons I mentioned above. I encountered it only as a tail-end reference on the Westpac page. I had no idea who created it and I didn't examine its history. If Andjam says I have disagreed with him/her at the Andrew Bolt page, I'll accept that without bothering to look. I certainly don't pursue pages created by Wiki users with whom I've had differences of opinion with the aim of having them deleted. Regardless, my nomination for deletion of this article stands for the reasons I gave. MrMonroe 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the possible shady motivations of the nominator aside, this summary of a whole bunch of non-notable advertising campaigns is itself, not notable. Lankiveil 06:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Delete as adcruft. There really isn't anything useful or encyclopaedic on this page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete ...maelgwn talk 12:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I feel that the "how did they do it?" ad campaign was one of the most notable Olympics-related advertising in Australia to do with the 2000 Olympics (and 2002). However, I don't have any sources to back up this claim. And maybe even if it is true, it isn't enough to establish notability. Andjam 13:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why it's up for deletion. Might want to find an article to merge it to, or stick it in your userspace someplace. --Dennisthe2 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, but not really that notable - and "interesting" isn't a valid reason to keep, otherwise we'd have an article on OCTA's route 1 bus, because it's numbered thusly for the highway it runs on. But I ramble. Delete. --Dennisthe2 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair\^talk 21:06, 15 March 2007 (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychogenes

Original research Alex Bakharev 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)d

KEEP and format The article is not formmated or Wikified, but it is still a good article. It contains lots of good information. The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. What would anybody gain from deleting this article? There are even sources for the info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.170.194 (talk • contribs).
Delete. This is unintelligible. Assuming the subject isn't a pseudoscientific hoax, this article would require a complete rewrite to be at all useful. Psychogenetics suffers the same problem. The first reference listed isn't even a real book, as far as I can discover. Stebbins 04:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete No verification on the accuracy of the references listed in the article. Possibly also original research. In response to the anon IP's question, I suggest reading WP:ILIKEIT.--TBCΦtalk? 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete bunch of made-up hooey. Strongly suggest bundling psychogenetics in with this, it's the same nonsense. Oh wait, is that my subliminal nuance data talking? Opabinia regalis 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Move or Delete probably a real concept, but this isn't the English name for sure. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Stebbins & Opabinia. Pete.Hurd 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychogenetics Pete.Hurd 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR Alf^Photoman 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
comment do you guys think a merge of salvagable material or a redirect to genetic memory might be appropriate? Wintermut3 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- If anything can be salvaged, and verifiable, not-made-up sources can be found, I'm all in favor of a merged rewrite. Stebbins 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't see anything here to be salvaged. It's all "Subliminal Nuance Data" and "Conscious Nuance Data" piffle. Add to which the fact that genetic memory redirects to racial memory, another article stuffed with WP:Complete bollocks also without a single reference. Pete.Hurd 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  
  note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial memory Pete.Hurd 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing here to be salvaged. This is at best pseudoscientific nonsense, and at worst it's just plain nonsense. Delete. Arkyan 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The following comment was left on the talk page of this AfD. I have copied here so that it won't be overlooked during the discussion. Stebbins 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP and format Although this is not an actual known term, it is properly defined and basically it is coining a new term. As a clinical psychologist and dentist in SF, CA I would find it very useful in discussing certain areas of the human psyche. Wikipedia shall only thrive when it is inclusive of new, evolving terms. That is what makes english a very powerful language. It is inclusive, not exclusive. I have ascertained that the referenced work is published by Aakila Rose Publishing out of San Jose, CA and is scheduled for release April 1, 2007. And that one of the authors, doctor Salma Rashid, is the author of the article herein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.194.88.167 (talk • contribs).
  
  Note, wikipedia, as an encyclopedia - a reference of existing knowledge, makes a practice of not being a place where new terms are coined, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Tolerate and EvolveI came across this and another article due to interest in learning about a group named "Psychogenetic," some Punk-Rock or Rock group. And reading the discussion going on here, as a layperson, it sounds like stuffy old minds who have grown intolerant of advancing into new realms. I thought Wiki is suppose to be a progressive growing forum where traditional ways are at least attempted to be left behind. In reading this article I wonder why no one has actually come up with it before and made it as popular as genes or genetics. It certainly is clear that what it is defining is something that us lesser human minds do experience or have. My central point would be what do any of you deletion gents fear? It's a good concept and not a danger to anyone's sensabilities. I say use it to advertise Wiki to the masses so they can be drown here. It's creativity at its best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronalddavid (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
- No one is being intolerant. The problem with this page isn't that it is "advancing into new realms", but that it sounds made-up and is not verified by reliable sources. Stebbins 21:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mep Report

Seems to be a vanity page for someone's audio blog -- does it even matter? --awh (Talk) 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete (probably speedy). Vanity page. Stebbins 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. No verification of the article's notability. --TBCΦtalk? 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete DB-BIO --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Article has very little verifiable content and reads like self-promotion. ◄Zahakiel ► 07:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. I'm not sure I can go A7 on this. --Dennisthe2 18:52, 11 March 2007 (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 per G7 Zsinj^Talk 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wicked Cow Entertainment

Recreated speedily deleted page, this time with a claim of notability and "sources". Problem is that most of the sources are self-published; the one reference from a reliable source contains only one brief quote from the company's owner in an article primarily about Jenna Jameson. Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Article was already speedily deleted once. It was created seemingly both times by the owner or an employee of Wicked Cow, and it doesn't assert it's notability as an encyclopedia article. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 03:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Umm...their current roster includes The Notorious B.I.G. and Aaliyah? Does anyone else suspect this may be a hoax? Wavy G 04:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. No citations, no sources, no verification of notability.--TBCΦtalk? 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy/Strong Delete; page has already been deleted once, plus notability has not been established. This appears to fall under a violation of WP:SPAM more than anything else. --Mhking 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is the same as other advertising and marketing agency pages. See Crispin Porter and Bogusky or Bartle Bogle Hegarty or Publicis & Hal Riney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.29.131 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 March 2007.
- Comment: ~~Two of those articles are up for speedy deletion for not asserting notability and seemingly only there to promote themselves.~~ One of those articles has been speedily deleted, the other two assert outside sources as to their notability and verifiability. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is applicable to this argument.—Carolfrog 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, blanked by creator – Qxz 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
While I still think that Wicked Cow Entertainment is deservering of this entry, I respect Wikipedia's online community and guidelines and will wait for a point in the near future when Wicked Cow Entertainment is better equipped with articles, press releases, etc. to re-post the entry. In the meantime, I ask that this Wicked Cow entry be taken down altogether, delete tag and all, until a later date.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wäntage USA

Non-notable organization per WP:CORP, no evidence of notability. Contested prod. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Almost none of the bands on this label even have their own articles, and those that do are in serious danger of failing WP:MUSIC. That the article creator is mentioned in the article itself strongly implies a conflict of interest. Stebbins 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources or citations to verify notability. Also, as Stebbins mentioned, a conflict of interest is clearly evident.--TBCΦtalk? 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are slight assertions of notability, but a scholarly search reveals no evidence of any notability. Does not meet WP:BAND. --Mus Musculus 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Bah! I don't have time to justify it right now. I agree that the creator/founder thing is COI. But if Bill Gates created the Microsoft entry, it wouldn't justify the deletion. I'll try to come back soon and fix this. Murderbike 21:11, 14 March 2007 (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shark in love

Neutral bump from speedy. An article about a hoax; unfortunately most web search results for "Arnold Pointer" are not English. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 04:01Z

Keep. All the comments below lost their meaning, as this article is being expanded now.Mlonguin 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Interesting, but by no means a notable subject.--TBCΦtalk? 04:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. The "reference" doesn't even mention the guy's name. Chris cheese whine 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

...Unless "Michael Scholl" is French for Arnold Pointer... Wavy G 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Michael Scholl is most definitely not French for Arnold Pointer.--JUDE ^talk 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, that is exactly what a hoax is... someone probably stole Michael Scholl's pictures, made a nice powerpoint and forged some "magazine news". The link below shows http://www.aqua-web.net/joom/content/view/503/45/ the "news". I have it in high resolution but I probably cannot upload it to wikipedia, as the guy who faked it may have its copyright. Another alternative would be to translate the powerpoint to English and start this hoax in US, it would probably spread and be famous very fast... just a joke :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlonguin (talk • contribs) 02:40, 13 March 2007 (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 'speedied G11 Opabinia regalis 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jo Malone

I don't know what this is. An advertisement? For what? Anyway, this is not an encyclopedic article. Even if the subject (whatever it is) is notable, I don't believe the article in the current state can be salvaged. A new article on the subject may be started, but the current article, as it stands, is completely useless. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD G11, blatant advertising.--TBCΦtalk? 04:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of AMC couples

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 04:19Z

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Must apologize, understood "AMC" as some kind of school and therefor considered the article as useless spam (i made the speedy). Nevertheless, since almost all of these couples don't have a wikipedia entry, i don't think a listing article is needed. Those relationships who are actually essential can be listed at the main page of whatever AMC is. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as blatant listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I would note that while there aren't entries on most couples as couples, there are probably entries on most characters by themselves (more than 100 entries in Category:All My Children characters). Perhaps merge with List of All My Children storylines or List of All My Children characters somehow? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 04:34Z
Delete per TBC, and probably make it a cat. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Categorization is not possible. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 08:16Z

Why not? Not trying to be confrontational here, but could we just put like [[Category:AMC couples]] or something to the relevant articles? --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete my god this is awful. Nardman1 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. You've gotta be kidding me. --Mhking 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate list about a fictional show, no real encyclopedic value.-- danntm ^T _C 21:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Peterkingiron. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:57, 12 March 2007 (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 speedied A7 Opabinia regalis 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing With The Sith

This doesn't seem notable to me. Mearnhardtfan 04:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD A7. The article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.--TBCΦtalk? 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A7 speedy. There's a pun in there somewhere ... Chris cheese whine 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Yawn. Just another groups of kids making a Youtube video. No assertion of notablility given. They didn't even bother to give us a link! The nerve. Wavy G 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Unneccessary. WikiMan53 (talk • contribs • count) | Review Me! | Can I have your autograph? 04:44, 11 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warren P. McGuirk

I am listing this article for deletion as I feel the subject of the article is Non-notable - the only thing Warren P. McGuirk is suggested to be notable for is being the dean of a university & having a local stadium named after him. Smells of OR & seems like it was written by someone close to him. If this article can't be deleted, I'd also suggest that maybe it could be merged into a relevant article, such as the stadium or the university. Spawn Man 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Spawn Man 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as Wikipedia is not a memorial.--TBCΦtalk? 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merging into Warren McGuirk Alumni Stadium would probably be best, since folks reading that article are sure to wonder who he was. --kingboyk 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Kingboyk's suggestion. --Lockley 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well I suggested it first... ;) Spawn Man 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Sorry there Spawn Man. All props to you (grin) --Lockley 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep He was the Dean of Athletics, so the naming is not absurd, but the question is whether the Athletics director at a university is notable. Many of them are. He's from U Mass Amherst. I think that qualifies, and it is surely sourcable--but not my field exactlyDGG 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep or redirect without merge. The Warren McGuirk Alumni Stadium basically contains everything it should about this person (was the "Athletic Director from 1948 to 1971"), so I don't think a merge is really necessary. Either redirect this to there as a plausible search term or keep for expansion. A Dean at U Mass for almost 25 years should be notable ... . -- Black Falcon 21:06, 16 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

AFD started 04:43, 11 March 2007

[edit] Barbara Schwarz

[edit] Nomination statement

Introduction: Barbara Schwarz has already been the subject of three AfD discussions and I do not lightly nor frivolously bring this 4th AfD. I reviewed the previous three AfDs and feel that they were all presented on the ~~dubious~~ false premise argument that the article was written as an “attack piece”. The first two AfDs were brought by Ms. Schwarz herself and the third was brought by User:Steve Dufour at the express request of Ms. Schwarz. (Please see 1st, 2nd, 3rd.) I say ~~"dubious"~~ "false premise" not because I am doubting the nature of the piece in its various versions but because that is a very dubious argument for deletion. An attack piece would be corrected, not deleted, and various actions in that direction have been taken. No, I am bringing this AfD because I believe, in good faith, that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability standards for inclusion. I make arguments for my position below that, I think, were previously either not made or, if touched upon, overshadowed by the nature of the previous discussions; both their focus on a improper argument and the presence of Barbara herself. Prior to bringing this AfD I ~~canvassed~~ queried the interested editors at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination) and found more than adequate interest, in my opinion, to take this to the community for consideration. Thank you for considering my arguments.

Not Notable: ~~Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable.~~ Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press to a very limited extent but is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. (edited - ja) Her private search for records for her private reasons gained her mention in a couple of news outlets. That is all. Below is my comment when I solicited comments at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination):

I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable. For instance, I can Google ~~"most parking tickets"~~ most+"parking tickets"[2] and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco, as covered in some depth by the San Francisco Chronicle (correct & add - ja). Certainly that does not make the firm notable enough for an article here. I could then Google them a bit more and maybe find out that they had some OSHA violations or filed a lawsuit or two. Still does not make them notable. But if a few editors here had a non-notable feud and dislike against "McMillan Electric Co." then they might be able to make an article that almost (but not quite) seems like it belongs here.

Some claim that her Usenet activity somehow contributes to her notability. Her Usenet postings are not notable for either their volume nor their content. There are lots of heavy posters on Usenet and lots of “interesting” material posted. That is not notable in itself and adds little, if anything, to any other notability. In my opinion, the only reason her Usenet activity has any “audience” here is because her postings were in vocal opposition to a small group of “anti-Scientologists” that also happen to be editors here. In my opinion, that very small group has carried their Usenet feud to these pages.

Non-public figure: Ms. Schwarz’ FOIA requests, the basis of any notability claim, were brought as a private person for private reasons. That she got mention in the newspaper for their volume does not automatically make her sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. This is clearly and, at best, a “borderline case”. And Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-public figures states:

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".

Ms. Schwarz clearly feels that she is harmed by the existence of this article and has asked for its removal. In a case of a non-public person such as this one, that carries weight for deletion. Thank you --Justanother 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (subsequent corrections and additions shown in ~~strikeout~~ and italics.)

[edit] Section 1

Comment on newsworthiness vs. encyclopedic-ness - Being persistent in petitioning public agencies for private reasons does not a public person make, nor a particularly notable one. I am sure that most school boards, condominium boards, town meetings, etc. etc. in America, for instance, have one or more people that show up to every meeting to make the same point over and over and over again. Sometimes those people are written up in the paper to fill up a slow news day. It is called a human interest story. Not encyclopedic. Not even particularly newsworthy but news outlets have to fill their papers or their airtime. The important thing to note is that these little human interest write-ups are ephemera; if someone that knows the person sees it it is forgotten quickly. Not so an encyclopedia. Articles here should stand some "test of time". Barbara Schwarz does not meet notability standards for an encyclopedia. and she did not even meet the much lower newsworthiness standards for more that a few local outlets despite one story apparently going out on the Associated Press (AP) wire, a cooperative tool for filling up newspapers and airtime. Were she truly noteworthy, the AP story would have been picked by perhaps hundreds of member and non-member news organizations. There is no evidence that her story showed up as more than local filler in a small handful of outlets. --Justanother 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (subsequent addition shown in italics.)
Comment on the recent expansion of the article - While Smee's efforts to improve the article are appreciated, to the degree that such improvement consists of referencing public records documenting Ms. Schwarz' private efforts to uncover information for her own private reasons; to that degree such expansion does not speak to the notability of the subject. We know that she filed lots of requests with governement agencies. Such agencies are usually required to make records of such available to the public and many agencies are making to effort to make that material available on the internet. The existence of these records says nothing about notability. And actually, IMO, they add little to the article other than to make it appear more substantial than it has any right to be. --Justanother 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest - sidebar issue

Note: I originally included this discussion of COI as COI has played a large part in recent discussions about deleting this article. Since it is not germane to the arguments for deletion I feel it is best to minimize, in this fashion, any distraction it may cause. - Justanother

Conflicts of interest: The subject of conflict of interest (COI) has been raised at Talk:Barbara Schwarz in connection with both the existence of this article and with AfD discussion. There are, IMO, two clear instances of COI; cases where the involved parties have off-Wikipedia relationships with Barbara Schwarz that would cause them to be strongly biased one way or the other. That is User:Steve Dufour and User:Tilman. Steve has already stated that he is a friend of Barbara Schwarz and had told her that he would see about getting the article removed. Steve has admitted to his COI but has demonstrated that his clear intent is to respect the project and the process here. Tilman has a long history of acrimony with Ms. Schwarz on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. The case for Tilman’s COI is made here. I will not repeat it, there are links that any interested editor can check. I also point out that Tilman proposed here that I should be blocked for simply talking about another AfD which seems to be a rather extreme position that may be indicative of a COI. I propose Steve and Tilman either both vote or both limit themselves to no-vote comments. That will balance and they might as well just vote. The claim has also been made that I, as a Scientologist, have a conflict of interest in that I might think that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology and, for that reason and that reason alone, I want the article to disappear and so I have a COI. That is wrong on all counts. I do not think that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology for my own reasons that are not really germane here. I have never attempted to remove material critical of Scientology that is properly sourced and presented. I do want the article to disappear because I think that a petty, critical, and demeaning article on a non-notable non-public person who has repeatedly asked for it to be removed, should be removed. I am not going to recluse myself and I am not going to ask anyone with sympathies for or against Scientology to recluse themselves either. Besides the fact that such a request is neither proper nor enforceable, this is not about Scientology. This is simply about one article about one living person and a decision on whether it belongs in this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz for more information on the WP:COI issues mentioned. Anynobody 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Notable In the interest of providing both POVs, this is why I think she is notable. Her FOIA activity should not be looked upon as some sort of Guiness Book of World Records title, it is far more notable than that. Filing a FOIA request costs the government money, unlike the usual attempt to set a record. It costs even more money when the person filing asks the government to cover the costs. Moreover the the scope of her requests includes dozens of agencies. Below is a sample of references, it doesn't even scratch the surface of her activity.

She has also been the victim of a deprogrammimg attempt by Cyril Vosper, and as such is relevant to discussions about Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues.

The Barbara Schwarz article directly relates to these articles: FOIA Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues Cyril Vosper related to Taxation in the United States possibly related to USENET Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Overstays

references

Thank you for your attention, Anynobody 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you Anynobody. However, as court records and so forth these are primary sources. As far as I know no published secondary source has ever said that Barbara was important. Steve Dufour 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Typically sources don't say "X is important". We are allowed to use primary sources as well as secondary sources as long as the article is not predominantly sourced from primary sources. When Person B is mentioned as holding the record for Y, we don't need anyone else to say "Person B is important." It's obvious to the casual reader that the world's record holder for Y is a notable person. Wjhonson 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me that the world record holder for filing the most Freedom of Information Act requests for information is an important person. Steve Dufour 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable is not important. Important is a value judgement that we shouldn't be making. However that she is notable is attested by her 35 thousand plus google hits. Wjhonson 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Steve Dufour" will get you lots of Google hits too, but I don't have a WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 2

Delete - As nominator Stricken as per below remarks. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the nominator is assumed to be arguing for deletion unless they state otherwise (e.g. a procedural listing without prejudice). AfD is truly not a vote, so adding your vote does not affect the determination of consensus as it relates to policy in the slightest. Your nomination statement is all that's required. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This was the longest AfD comment I had ever read... until I read the archived discussions from the first 3 AfDs. With all due respect to you argument, Justanother, might I advise that you try to be a bit more concise in future AfDs. Also, you don't need to vote on your own AfD (although I would recommend signing your comments). Stebbins 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. Yes it is long. However, since one user, User:Anynobody, started an RfC on me for thinking about this AfD (see WP:ANI#Admin help needed on User RfC please) and another, User:Tilman, suggested I be blocked and was seconded by User:Orsini, just for talking about it (see the link in the COI section above and subsequent comment), I figured I had better. Sorry if it is a lot to read. --Justanother 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Justanother writes "...User:Tilman, suggested I be blocked and was seconded by User:Orsini, just for talking about it..." Once again Justanother, you are wrong and make false a accusation of impropietry. My support of Tilman's suggestion was based on your repeated uncivil and disruptive behavior; your repeated personal attacks, both of the thinly veiled and overt variety; your collusion with a clearly disruptive editor on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, whom you fully supported in that behavior and whom has since been blocked for same; your repeated false accusations of impropietry; your repeated making of comments to incite and provoke people; and your repeated initiation of disruptive discussions in which your stated premises are inherently flawed. This RfD is yet another example of the latter, as the numerous strikethroughs in the RfD comments can attest, before even going into the specifics of numerous flawed premises within. My comments are soley based on observing your behavior, not on the flawed pretext of bigotry which you repeatadly cite by reason you are a scientologist for this basis. Orsini 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Thank you for your input. I think that it is abundantly clear to anyone that reads this diff that Tilman was suggesting the block for my raising the question of this 4th AfD. As to any other issue of my personal behaviour that you raise; this is neither the time nor the place for me to respond nor to point out any similar objections that I may have to you. Thank you. --Justanother 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      - On the contrary Justanother, I believe it is entirely appropriate to raise the issue of your behavior, in this RfD discussion. In particular, that behavior in which you and BabyDweezil indulged on the Talk:Barbara_Schwarz page and your attitude towards the article itself. It appears clear to me that you both began a campaign of disruption, first with the aim of stripping the article of its references and sources to prepare it for an AfD of what you called a "dirty corner of Wikipedia". When you and BabyDweezil challenged the accuracy of sources, and Tilman discussed and provided those sources, BabyDweezil then attempted to raise a frivolous COI issue based on misleading and false premises against Tilman which you saw fit to make a key point of this AfD discussion. It is appropriate to cite this disruptive behavior of yours here as it pertains directly to this RfD. Your RfD comments are based on false pretenses, inaccuracies, and premises as faulty as what you claimed my support of Tilmans' suggestion was for blocking you. Orsini 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        You are entitled to your opinion both on my behavior and on the appropriateness of mentioning it here. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy~~ Strong Keep - NOTE, there were Three prior unsuccesfull AFDs. Other editors have stated that a 4th ADF nomination would simply be disruptive. Article has 12 reputable citations, including documents from court cases, the Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, the United States Supreme Court, and other reputable sources. Smee 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Update: - I'm changing my sentiment from "Speedy Keep", to "Strong Keep", I see no reason not to let this intriguing AFD discussion run its course, much as I still agree with other editors that the continued nominations are disruptive. Smee 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
- Court case documents are archived on government and legal websites for probably millions of cases and do not speak to notability. --Justanother 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Court case documents are also considered primary sources (and yes, primary sources exist on every person, notable or not), as are usenet posts. The use of primary sources are generally restricted to specific situations, or to bolster a secondary source which references the primary. I'll have to take a closer look at whether or not the primary sources are being used properly. Also, the fact that this is a fourth AfD is irrelevant. Consensus changes, as does the criteria and arguments used in a nomination. Crockspot 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    - I should also point out Jimbo's comments regarding Newsgroup postings, original research, and BLPs, which is directly relatable to this article. - Crockspot 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Wrong. BLP policy has been followed for this article. The Newsgroup postings are referenced and identified only as self-published sources, and no reasonable doubt exists she posted them. Any OR in the article was removed long ago. Jimbo's comments and concerns were noted and acted upon. Orsini 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Close. I don't see what could possibly be said that was not said in the past 3 nominations. The article is extensively referenced; notability doesn't really seem to be an issue. Stebbins 05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The past 3 nominations were based on a faulty premise. --Justanother 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment ~~Though I'm—as of now—undecided~~, I'm strongly opposed to speedily keeping it. Please remember that consensus is not immutable, and that it can change amongst the community.--TBCΦtalk? 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP:CCC is not immutable, when the community is divided more or less evenly on several AfDs i could see whre WP:CCC is probably of no help. In this case, the previous three AfDs were kept by a pretty solid majority. Please take a moment to look them over before deciding your vote at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Thanks for your time in participating and commenting. Anynobody 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but Justanother seems to have presented new arguments—albeit most are invalid or faulty—in this AfD--TBCΦtalk? 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, his arguments have been...what you described. It's actually his insistence on pursuing this based on those arguments that has prompted an unsuccessful effort to explain that to him. It is also why I think this boils down to "asking the other parent" as mentioned in WP:CCC, if he had made convincing arguments not brought up in the previous requests I would agree to delete the article. Anynobody 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Just because an article is well sourced doesn't mean that the article in question is notable. Filling out thousands of FOIA requests is far from notable. WP doesn't host a bio of every person who is the worlds most pierced man, or the person who threw the most messages in a bottle into the ocean, or the laywer who has won the most cases. Cman 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Strong Keep per Zahakiel, Antaeus Feldspar, V, and Tilman. Orsini 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to give a reason, otherwise the closing admin will ignore it. TJ Spyke 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Thank you TJ Spyke; done. Orsini 08:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Is anybody going to care in 5 years to read this article? Requesting a ton of documents does not make her noteworthy in its own. Newsworthy != noteworthy, and also per Cman --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This meets all the policy requirements. The nomination says that although Babs is noted in the press, she is not notable. However, WP:N states that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources", as well as "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent." Babs has been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As for the "do no harm" clause... I think that would really be a stretch to apply it to this case. There are numerous people who have articles here that haven't been deleted for that reason. In fact, as I recall, the Daniel Brandt article was kept many times by an overwhelming majority, with the impetus for deletion being rooted in that "do no harm" clause. I'm not sure there's any policy here that supports deletion. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - Justanother you are violating the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Anynobody 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. How so? WP:CONSENSUS specifically states that consensus can change.--TBCΦtalk? 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(I actually commented under your comment) Because the three previous AfD votes in this case were strongly rejected. This falls under this part of CCC Anynobody 06:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep since the AfD contains no new arguments, and suggest a block for Justanother, who is wasting time by raising issues that have been discussed so many times already, and for rewarming th CoI allegation. --Tilman 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is requiring you to waste your time with it. Steve Dufour 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Justanother is requiring Tilman to be here to support an article he feels notable. Since he feels that way about it, I can appreciate why he might feel this is a waste of his time since he has voted in past nominations. Just as I imagine you must look at the previous AfDs as a waste of time Steve Dufour, since the article was not deleted. Anynobody 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider my efforts to defend someone from unfair attacks and to try to improve WP a waste of time no matter how the vote on this nomination goes. Thanks for thinking of me. Steve Dufour 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour, can you please explain how a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources, can be construed as an unfair attack? Thank you. Orsini 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If partly because of my input Barbara's article is now a "a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources" I consider my time working on it well spent. Steve Dufour 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Barbara is not the kind of notable person that Wikipedia's policies say should be the subject of an article. Steve Dufour 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The nominator states, "Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable." I contend that this is the definition of notability, the first words of said policy being, "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' I do not see the COI issue having any bearing on the current state of the article, nor do I believe that a subject's wishes should have any bearing on whether or not an encyclopedia contains verifiable information on the subject; for a detailed discussion of this issue, see this page. In any event, the article is fully policy-compliant, and there is therefore no reason to remove an article that a number of editors have taken the time to create, update and improve. ◄Zahakiel► 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. Yes, that was very clumsy wording on my part. --Justanother 07:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm sorry, but just filing a ton of FOIA requests and unsucessful lawsuits is not notable. Also, this AFD does not qualify for a speedy keep. TJ Spyke 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Zahakiel's well-stated reasoning and per the fact that no new reasoning (besides the allegations of COI) has been presented in this AfD that wasn't already examined by the previous three AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there does not seem to be anything really encyclopedic to say about the subject. Most of the article seems to be just "heh, heh, heh, lookit all the quaint delusions this lady harbors", which is not the main content any respectable encyclopedia ought to have in a biographical article. This might be relevant background material if there were any real encyclopedic content in the foreground, but I see none - as others have commented, the record for most FOIA requests filed just doesn't cut it. As for those who want the article to be kept simply because it is sourced, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something can be sourced as fact does not automatically make it belong in an encyclopedia. –Henning Makholm 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep In addition to the "Keep" points outlined above, the subject remains a byword within U.S. government information circles (and in the field of information-handling more generally) in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. The aspects of the article that have proved the most contentious over time (e.g., content on her personal beliefs and her relationship to Scientology) seem to me appropriate for inclusion (provided that they are, as they seem to be currently, appropriately sourced and NPOV), if for no other reason than that they are useful in fully understanding the FOIA issues raised by her actions. The subject has chosen to become, to whatever extent, a public figure, through involvement in public official processes, the press, and the Internet; a byproduct of doing so, in this day and age, is the possibility of being the subject of a WP article. Robertissimo 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article seems to fulfil WP:BIO (albeit not easily) and has no obvious issues with respect to policy. The autobiographical material could be trimmed a bit, but other than that, I find the nomination and especially the part on WP:BLP problems very unconvincing. —xyzzy_n 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete An embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately. Whatever her supposed notability, Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. Her privacy should be be respected. Fred Bauder 15:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fred, would you mind explain the difference between the article as it now stands and the article as it was recreated from scratch under your own guidance after your unilateral decision to delete the article and its edit history as well as the talk page and its edit history? I am unsure how the two versions differ in any significant way so I really have no idea what you mean that "it has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Only reason for existence is to denigrate Scientologists and other living people. Non-notable. --Tbeatty 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Passes our thresholds for notability, and shouldn't be deleted just for being controversial to some (is every apparently once-controversial article going to be afd'd now in some COI manner...? Brandt, essjay, this?). passes WP:BIO, WP:N, etc., and is about someone involved in Supreme Court action. Keep. - Denny 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep changing to strong keep based on expansion of article/sourcing. - Denny 12:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep A notable person deserving an article. --MZMcBride 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete and salt page - Per nomination. The subject is not particularly notable, she feels she is harmed by the article (and I agree), and the article has been a trouble spot since day one. The spirit of WP:BLP calls for us to delete the article. - Crockspot 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete plainly...not notable...price of admission isn't worth it.--MONGO 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A record number of FOIA requests = a record amount of tax money wasted on fruitless FOIA requests. Scientology or no Scientology, delusions or no delusions, a record abuse of the FOIA and waste of tax dollars is notable. There are also plenty of sources. She has no say in the matter; she has made her beliefs extremely public and now wants Wikipedia not to refer to them, which is not her decision.--Parsleyjones 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment she is not a celebrity. She is not a politician. She is not royalty. She is not an accomplished author. She is not a mass murderer. She is not an athlete. She is a citizen of the United States that had her 15 minutes of fame filling out those FOIA back in the 80's. Cman 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment She is not a citizen of the United States. She is citizen of Germany that is illegally living in the United States. I agree that Ms. Schwarz is not the most famous person on Wikipedia, but neither is Star Wars Kid. We cover lots of minor characters on Earth that we deem notable. It is also important to note that non-notable people don't typically attract hundreds of editors to research and write about them. Vivaldi (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment There are dozens of examples of non-public figures who are notable. This woman may not consider herself public, but the claims she filed are, and the processing of them was paid for by the public. She filed a lawsuit against the CIA! That is pretty public in my book.--Parsleyjones 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Response - Under the logic in your first point, it would then seem that every parent that sends their child to a public school is a public person? And every such child, too? After all, their schooling is "paid for by the public". And filing a lawsuit as a private person against a public agency does not, ipso facto, make the private individual a "public figure". Schwarz is a non-public figure.
      - Comment - I couldn't agree more with Parsleyjones, it is the exact reason I have been editing her article. Anynobody 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Response Sending children to public school is far from a waste of tax money. I would say that every parent who files hundreds of thousands of FOIA requests with their child's school is notable.--Parsleyjones 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Vote changed, see below. Notariety alone makes her notable, and it's well covered. No autobiographical edits at the beginning. If she's doing this sort of thing, well, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment have you ever heard of the term, "15 minutes of fame"? That's all she equates to. If I were to go out and pay all my speeding tickets in 2 dollar bills, would that make me notable for WP? No, it wouldn't. Sure, I will get my 15 minutes of fame, but that would be my only notable accomplishment. This is the same thing. The only thing she is notable is for her FOIA requests. Cman 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, I'm quite clear on the concept of "fifteen minutes of fame". The problem remains though that she is well covered - but on the other hand, the synopsis makes her sound like she's a paranoid-delusional woman, or suffers from some other mental disorder. Whether this is the case is left to a psychiatrist, though. Strike that, and she's some woman who sued the CIA and made a s***load of FOIA requests. That said, in consideration of the way the article sounds (i.e., rather harmful), and that WP:LIVING makes a point on doing no harm (other comments above), I'm striking my previous vote. Yes, she's notable in being a record holder for FOIA requests, but this strikes me as a case of a woman who needs her privacy given any perceived mental disorders. ~~Weak delete~~, per the "Do No Harm" clause in WP:LIVING. --Dennisthe2 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Dennisthe2, "Do no harm" is a two way street. Barbara Schwarz is known to file frivolous and false reports to law enforcement about her perceived enemies, and spam vast amounts of defamatory libel on the Usenet about those whom she does not like which is any person who cannot accept her delusions as fact. While in Germany, her smear campaigns she ran for scientology as an operative in its notorious Guardian's Office caused much harm to the reputations of the perceived enemies of scientology. I believe this reliable, well sourced, and well enforced by community action factual biography on Wikipedia has the potential to cause her far less harm than a similar biography published on a web page or web site, which is a likely and inevitable result of being established in the wake of the vacuum left by deletion of this article. Such sites never have such the rigorous built-in protection and insistence upon verifiable data from reliable sources that any Wikipedia BLP article demands. Regards, Orsini 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      - As tempting as it is to abstain in protest of the tug of war here, you do have a point. Cman, he's right, and the notations below also have it. Strong keep. Like I said earlier, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comments on Orsini's arguments - 1) Orsini makes some claims that not only cannot be backed up in RS but which are really off-topic to the issue of the suitability of this subject for this encyclopedia. Even if Ms. Schwarz was "mean" to some (and I by no means take that for granted), that is hardly a reason for this project to be "mean" to her. "Do no harm" means just that; not "figure out if the subject deserves that harm be done to her", which seems to be Orsini's premise. 2) The concept that the existence of an article here will somehow forestall more vindictive mention on web pages is just silly. I mean, it hasn't exactly helped Tom Cruise, has it? --Justanother 03:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comments on Justanother's arguments - (1) The claims I have made can be backed up by simple observation and searches on Google. Are RS required for comments in AfD discussions, or does AGF prevail here? The project is not being "mean" to Schwarz in any way by insisting her article has reliable and well-sourced citations; in fact, it has been far more kind to her than she has been to those whom she has defamed and smeared by spamming the libel propaganda from the scientologist's "dead agenting" website. The hate site's front man even appears on video admitting they have no obligation to correct their mistakes. Further, the suitability of this subject for Wikipedia has already been answered by results of three previous AfDs, which favored keeping the article. (2) By comparing Barbara Schwarz to Tom Cruise: is this an admission by Justanother that Barbara Schwarz is, in fact, a public figure? As User:ChrisO observed below, persons who wish to remain private figures do not publish a 90-plus part autobiography under their own name in a public medium accessible word-wide. Orsini 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Reply - "By comparing Barbara Schwarz to Tom Cruise: is this an admission by Justanother that Barbara Schwarz is, in fact, a public figure?" No, absolutely not. It is an observation that they are both figures hated by "anti-Scientologists", especially that insular group that frequents alt.religion.scientology. The only difference is that since Cruise is a public figure, there has been an incredible amount of "pile-on" criticism that is absent in the obscure Ms. Schwarz' case. --Justanother 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Response -Justanother, you do not address the contradiction in your AfD statement, stating how the subject remains "a non-public person", after the subject published a 90-plus part autobiography, under her own name, in a public medium accessible word-wide. You also imply the interest in the article is solely from "that insular group that frequents alt.religion.scientology," which is false; the subject is of interest in the internet abuse prevention community. Orsini 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment I guess I find it hard to believe that anyone would take an "attack" from Barbara seriously. So seriously that a WP article is needed to defend against her. Steve Dufour 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Response. I suppose Scott Peterson's article should be removed. And Anita Hill's. Budd Dwyer's, Oliver North's, Squeaky Fromme's. None of these deserve to be famous, or probably want to be. But notability isn't based on someone's value.--Parsleyjones 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Her notability is plenty established. Former cult leader, FOIA record setter, USENET celebrity, frivolous lawsuit filer. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has considered her and made her one of the only people permanently barred from the certiorari process. She is not a private figure. She voluntarily gave up that status when she became president of Church of Scientology in Germany and then again when she volunteered to be interviewed by the Salt Lake City Tribune. Her story was put on the AP Wire and spread through newspapers across the country. People that talk to reporters knowing their story will be published in a paper do not subsequently have the right to claim the details in that story are a private affair. The FOIA requests were not "in the late 80's" as user Cman suggests above. She has been making numerous FOIA requests even in this decade. Also it is inappropriate for Cman to threaten to add articles to Wikipedia that he deems unworthy just to make a WP:POINT. Vivaldi (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am concerned over this posting, on Jimbo's talk page:

Hello Jimbo. I thought you might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). I have already invoked your comments about newsgroup postings, OR, etc. related to your own article, but I thought you would want to comment directly. This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia, IMHO. - Crockspot 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there are so many users with Jimbo's page on their watchlist, a comment like this could be seen as canvassing. Especially "This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia". Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You left off the "IMHO" from my quote. Since I had already invoked a diff of Jimbo's comments in a reply above, I thought he should be afforded the opportunity to speak directly to this situation. It was my opinion that his previous comments related directly to this article, but I didn't want to speak for him. I suspect he would agree with me, but I could be wrong. And what is wrong with getting as many opinions as possible? The outcome of this AfD does not affect me one bit, as long as the decision is made by a truly broad consensus. - Crockspot 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Crockspot, please consider revising your comment on Jimbo's page to change it to a simple invitation to take a look without including any opinion or characterization of the article or this AfD. Thanks. Stricken, see my comments below. --Justanother 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, albeit reluctantly. - Crockspot 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am striking the comment, please do as you see fit. --Justanother 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see any problem with letting Jimbo know about it. If people are watching his talk page they should be mature enough to make up their own minds about it and not believe something just because Crockspot said it. On the other hand, Cman's threat was out of line. Steve Dufour 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I apollogize for my harsh words. I think that I should have said something a little bit different. I am fixing it right now to make it less harsh. Cman 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks. Your threat would not have been very effective anyway. No one would notice the difference from the normal WP situation. :-) Steve Dufour 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per many reasons, but I think Vivaldi summed them up for me the best. (Oh, and I came here because I saw the post on Jimbo's page, so maybe the canvassing aspect is true, but maybe it's not having the intended effect.) —Doug Bell ^talk 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Jimbo is interested in BLP issues and it is appropriate that a mention be made on his talk page. I have asked Crockspot above to modify the message. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Upon further reflection, Crockspot's communication to another single editor, be it Jimbo or whomever, is his own business, and, as you say, there in no guarantee of what the net effect might be. So Crockspot, I apologize if I was meddlesome, please do as you see fit. --Justanother 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Disclosure - I should probably disclose that before I left Jimbo a note, I also left a note on Morton Devonshire's talk page, stating specifically that I was doing so because I knew that a lot of people watch Morty's page. If you want to call that canvassing, then fair enough. I happen to think that the reason this article was kept in the previous three AfD's is because the "votes" were overwhelmed by a minority opinion specifically interested in keeping this article. More/wider opinions are better, whatever they may be. I don't see anything wrong with letting a wider audience know about an AfD, nor do I see anything wrong with including my opinion about in in user talk space. If this is a violation, please let me know and I will modify my behavior in the future. - Crockspot 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Clarification - Just to clarify, I did not leave Jimbo the note for the same reason I left Morty one. I truly wanted Jimbo's thoughts on this directly. - Crockspot 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I think canvassing is WP:CANVASSING and you cannot worry about who watches whose talk pages. That would make any communication at all subject to a charge of canvassing and that is ridiculous. So I see no problem with you communicating with a limited number of people about this AfD, based on my read of the policy. --Justanother 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speey Keep I too came here via Jimbo's page. My main concern is that to bring fourth AfD there should be weighty and substantial reasons given. I don't see those presented here. Notability is a often a judgement call. Previous AfDs have made that call in the affirmative here. Those decisions should be allowed to stand.--agr 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close as a result of prior consensus and outstanding canvassing issues with this nomination. RFerreira 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question - Please, what "outstanding canvassing issues" are you referring to? Thanks. --Justanother 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Question about the gray header - I am curious about this header as the link on it, Wikipedia:Survey notification, goes to an "inactive" page. Please comment on talk. Thanks --Justanother 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete making numerous FOIA requests does not make one notable. In the name of WP:BIO and WP:BLP], this article should not exist.-- danntm ^T _C 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per the numerous citations and references in the article that clearly verify the notability of the subject. Also, as with the Daniel Brandt article, "the subject doesn't like it" is never a valid reason for deletion.--TBCΦtalk? 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

- Comment - fair enough. This seems to clinch it. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - For whatever it's worth, any deprogramming attempts by Cyril shouldn't figure into the equation. Why she's notable seems to be what's at question - not what's happened to her after exiting the Church of Scientology. --Dennisthe2 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment These seem to be primary sources. Have any secondary sources said that Barbara is important? Steve Dufour 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on newsworthiness vs. encyclopedic-ness - Moved up near my noom statement --Justanother 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover". If we've kept nearly 500 articles for every fictional creature mentioned in some obscure Japanese cartoon, then why not also Schwarz?--TBCΦtalk? 05:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Heavens no! No way I would touch the sacred cow of Pokemon and you will not bait me into crossing that line (laff). BLP is different. All the arguments have already been made. Thanks for the smile. --Justanother 05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Looks notable to me. And I can't believe we're going through this for a fourth time... Js farrar 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The subject clearly does pass the notability test. Compared with the version of the article that survived the last nomination for deletion ([3] - admins only!), this version is greatly improved. Regarding the "not a public figure" argument, I find it difficult to believe that a person who's posted a 92-part (!) autobiography on Usenet can be considered a private figure. Privacy and self-promotion don't exactly go hand in hand. -- ChrisO 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, clearly. The subject easily meets the requirements of notability. semper fictilis 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, clearly non-notable. // 208.255.229.66 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. People, the notability guideline, and it is a guideline, states, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I believe this is another way of saying that if someone has an article here because they have been in the paper for a trivial reason - like being fucking insane - they are non-notable. Other than some passing morbid fascination with this unfortunate case, this has no encyclopedic value and does not belong here. --Mus Musculus 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. The article is not fair to her. Nobody knows her truly. They try to figure her out via third parties who also never met her. This Wikipedia article is used by others to harass Barbara Schwarz. A bot named Babblestop NOCEM spammed the Wikipedia article within a short time period approx. 600 times and counting to harass her and deny her free speech on Usenet. If the article would be fair, he would not use it as harassment tool. -- Stranger Note: This is StrangerInTown (talk • contribs)'s second edit. — StrangerInTown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC). (UTC).

- Disclosure - note suspected sockpuppet vote - I have removed comments by a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:The real Barbara Schwarz posting as User:StrangerInTown. Please note this sockpuppet has voted above, and has been reported on AIV. Orsini 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If Barbara was really an important person her comments would be welcome here, or so it seems to me. Steve Dufour 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - Barbara Schwarz has been banned from editing on Wikipedia with good reason. If she does not wish to play by the rules, she does not get to play on the grounds. Orsini 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More Sockpuppet Info: - For more information on chronic abuse of Sockpuppets by Banned User, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The real Barbara Schwarz. Thanks. Smee 08:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment The fact that she does not know how to use sockpuppets well is a clue that she is not an important person. Especially when a big part of her so-called notability is her Internet activity. Steve Dufour 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I voted keep, but I am uncomfortable with the notion of excluding the subject of the article from this discussion. If we have an article about a living person, they should be allowed to comment on its talk page as well, even if they are permanently banned from the rest of the encyclopedia. --agr 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Clearly notable. I sought out and read this article long ago, before this controversy erupted. As others have noted, this is the fourth AfD. At what point can these things be called vexatious -- the fifth, ninth, seventeenth AfD? Raymond Arritt 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Thank you for your input. I am sorry if you find this AfD annoying but I feel that this is the first true AfD the subject has had; the first one that was premised on a valid argument for deletion. I think that my feeling is borne out by the responses we are receiving. For my part, I fully intend to abide by the outcome of this AfD and will not bring one at any future date. All I ask is that this AfD be allowed to run its full course. Thank you. --Justanother 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Might be a bit off topic, but the GNAA article wasn't deleted until the 18th nomination, so being nominated for the fourth time doesn't seem as strange in comparison.--TBCΦtalk? 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Very notable. Thirty-eight thousand Google hits. I knew about her before I knew there was an article on Wikipedia. Definitely not just some random "private person". Wjhonson 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Vivladi's reasoning. Being picked up by the AP definately gives the article relevance, and it's pretty heavily sourced all-round. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - And the fact that practically no-one apparently picked it up off the wire speaks to its lack of relevance. --Justanother 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Response to Comment by Justanother - Not necessarily, it depends on what else was going on when the AP ran stories that weren't picked up. For example, I imagine several AP stories weren't picked up on September 11, 2001 because of other events. The fact that it is worthy of AP attention speaks to notability in general. On a scale of media relevance, a person the subject of an AP item that wasn't picked up is more notable than someone who is not. It's also important to remember that media coverage alone does not determine notability. Anynobody 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, having cases in appeals court and SCOTUS may not make you tremendously notable... but, I think it's just as notable as many internet memes we have articles for... Now if there is a violation of WP:BLP or this is too much of an attack page (I didn't read it) then I have no problem with imposing a size limit based on information that we can get from only reliable sources. gren グレン 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Justanother you enjoy responding to anyone who wants to keep. What is your COI in trying to delete? Something is fishy here. Wjhonson 06:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - Maybe I do it just for the halibut. Maybe I think the only thing fishy is this article. --Justanother 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Maybe it is because the subject, being a former president of scientology in Germany, attracts pro-scientology editors to delete this article. Maybe it is because as the antics of the subject, one of their former leaders, have been quite bizarre. As is well known, scientologists have a history of trying to remove or truncate any material which do not represent a pro-scientology POV, or which may be seen as unfavorable to scientology. Maybe it's for those reasons. Or maybe not. Orsini 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Reply to Orsini - Or maybe it is because a small group of (what I term) anti-Scientologists wants to keep this article here for their own purposes and I oppose that mis-use of this encyclopedia. You know who some of those "anti-Scientologists" are Orsini, you canvassed at least six of them earlier. Here is your history; check the postings starting at 05:53, 11 March 2007. I do not know User:Johntex as an "anti-Scn", just someone that supported your position on Schwarz. I do not know the User:Bruns, I assume that you do. The other six I know well. And there are at least seven "Keep" votes already placed here from "anti-Scientologists" that I have had dealings with before (here are a few of them getting their props from Touretzky) but I, the sole Scientologist here, have the "conflict of interest". Not. --Justanother 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Response - So Justanother, now you make accusations of inappropriate canvassing? Whatever happened to "...I see no problem with you commnuicating with a limited number of people about this AfD, based on my read of the policy" - does this statement of yours only apply to those with whom you agree? And here you are citing the Usenet as a source too? Oh my, what egregious double standards. I left a link to this AfD on the Talk pages of a few editors who may have been interested in this article, as they had contributed to it in the past, and in one case because it may have interested him. I note also your "us and them" approach with who is pro-scientology and who is not; did it occur to you there are those who support the article being in Wikipedia who don't care about scientology, but more about the principle of retaining a reliably sourced article about a notable person in FOIA, internet abuse, and scientology? As User:Dave420 observed, "The article lists how her internet activity brought her to light in anti-spam circles. They're STILL interested in her, as her spamming continues to this day." Your cries of religious persecution and "poor little me, the lone scientologist" rhetotric is becoming tiresome when it seems clear to me that you push for the deletion of articles and material which is unfavorable to scientology, no matter how well or otherwise such material is referenced or sourced. WP:COI policy is clear on this point. A similar observation was also noted below by FOo, with whom I don't believe I have seen or interacted with before. So my observation is not unique; it appears to me you have a COI of your own in creating this AfD, without my need to cite scientology doctrine about the duty of all scientologists to supress unfavorable material here as this response is long enough already. Orsini 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Short - I have no such duty as a Scientologist. I have only the duties that we all share; that of wikipedia editor and that of human being. --Justanother 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and disqualify nominator from future AfD. This is a badly misjudged disruption. Nominator has been strongly encouraged in the past to focus on improving articles rather than trying to have things he doesn't like deleted. --FOo 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - Really don't know what this one means. I have no history of trouble over my editing style other than objections to my trying to enforce some rules as far as NPOV and RS, etc. Those objections coming from parties that often think IAR means do what you like. And I would not have to reply so much if so much silly personal crap did not show up. So if you are tired of hearing me then don't make this about me. Simple, right? --Justanother 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith here. Justanother has a right to defend his opinion of this AfD, just like anyone else here. I may not agree with him, but that is no reason to even think of suggesting barring him from nominating articles for AfD. --Dennisthe2 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Everyking 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I must be missing somethign here (entirely possible given the length fo the previous AfDs and this one:) She's clearly notable and the article has survived three previous AfDs. Consensus can change but as the article has been improved since the previous AfD and no startlingly new 'evidence' has been raised in this one, I really don't understand why this has been raied again, to be honest. StuartDouglas 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - clearly notable... good grief Glen 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep not this shit again. Passes all criteria for articlehood. If the woman didn't want to be in the news she shouldn't have set a world record. Nardman1 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. Notable subject covered in a NPOV manner, and backed up with many strong references. Why this has been nominated for deletion 4 times is beyond me. Is there no way to stop this abuse of process? Jeffpw 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could get the Supreme Court to order the clerk to stop taking her appeals? :P Nardman1 10:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nardman1, she is banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS. :-) This sanction is notable as only a handful of people share this status. Jeffpw, if there is a way to stop the abuse of process with this article, please enlighten me how we can do it? The pattern is becoming familiar: pro-scientologist POV pusher removes WP:RS cited material; then begins an edit war on the article and Talk page; then makes false accusations of impropriety to whoever restored the cited material; then frivolous complaints are made to the WP:BLPN; then same on Jimbo Wales' Talk page, and then the inevitable AfD. Tedious, isn't it? Orsini 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Orsini, if it is so notable, where are the articles on the others "banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS"? Wow, Orsini, that sounds like a great way for you to contribute to this project. Because with your grand total of 12 Mainspace edits in 9 months here, you certainly are overdue. Just what is your function here, Orsini? 'Cause it looks to me like it is disruption and attack. And here you are attacking me with no proof other than your dubious word against my good record here. But I am used to it. So let's just stop the attacks on me and let this AfD run its course, shall we? This is not about me. And I am done boring these good people with responses to attacks by, mainly, you. At least User:Tilman had the good grace to make his vote and bow out (albeit not without the obligatory request that I be blocked for even thinking about an AfD on his Usenet nemesis). You, the other hand, continue to disrupt this process with ill-considered attacks on me. I apologize to everyone here but it is tough to leave these attacks unanswered. I will limit my future responses to attacks to the simple mention that this is not about me, and not even that if possible. I will not further contribute to Orsini's (or anyone's) disruption of this AfD. Thank you. --Justanother 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - --Justanother, the fact so few people have been similarly dealt with by the SCOTUS does make the subject of the article notable. Sorry; I cannot answer where articles appear for the others banned in a similar way by theSCOTUS; it may be a worthy project for me to embark upon at a future date. Back to topic: Am I disrupting this process? It appears to me this AfD itself is disruptive, as observed by several comments on this page, and my input here is certainly no more disruptive than your own and BabyDweezil's behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. This AfD is flawed and based on many faulty premises, not least your misleading claims of User:Tilman having a COI after he provided reliable citations for sources that displeased you and User:BabyDweezil when you had both demanded them. I will continue to point out its flaws and faulty premises in spite of yet another of your personal attacks. If my "dubious word" on commenting and pointing out these flaws is inappropriate, any admin is free to warn me if this is the case. Orsini 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, meets all the relevant standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A slightly weak keep, in fact, but she seems to be notable enough for an article (perhaps not for an article of this length and detail, but we don't have control over that). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unremarkable person, unremarkable events. Google hits are notability? No. Article is well sourced? The opposite: it's transparently original research based on court papers and news clippings. A very strong delete per NOT#IINFO, NOR, and NPF, and speedy deletion per A7 and/or G10 would not be out of the question. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Article already been deemed keepable three times. No new relevant argument was brought forward for deletion this time. Stop abusing the AfD for articles one personally don't like. Lord Metroid 15:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The nominator brought forward new points that he felt were compelling, and consensus can change, so the number of previous AfDs is irrelevant and speedy keeping is not applicable here. However, she does appear to meet our notability standards. Krimpet 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as notable, SqueakBox 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as notable and verifiable. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as notable, verified, and serving the public interest. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This looks like a bad faith nomination, an attempt to censor Wikipedia, by somebody close to the subject who dislikes the article. Sorry your don't like the article, but the subject apparently did these things and they are in the public record. Having all this information neatly wrapped in a concise article is probably helpful to the legal system and good for society. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that the shots come from a different direction, see whom she criticizes Alf^Photoman 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Nothing really new in any arguments, and we've been through this 3 times already. 66.189.37.134 21:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (Super7)

[edit] Section 3

NOTE/UPDATE: - Article significantly expanded since (4th) AFD submission. From approx 871 words to 1,197 words, and from 12 citations to 21 citations. Also, now an extensive "Further reading" section, with additional court cases from high courts including United States Court of Appeals. Smee 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The article is now almost unreadable so less harm is done, thanks. :-) Steve Dufour 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will comment in my nomination area on the expansion. --Justanother 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep per Zahakiel and Vivaldi. This is an overwhelmingly sourced article (there are a lot of FAs more poorly sourced) about a notorious, not merely a notable, person. She would not remotely be the only Wikipedia article about a person whose notoriety is based on the world believing her to be a nutcase. I'd like to finish with taking Angus and others to task for their startling revisionist view on WP:OR. To quote from that policy, "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." Court papers and news reports constitute the very bloody definition of "reliable source." I have no idea when Wikipedians got the notion that the only way information could be compiled was to pick up a book from someone who'd already done it and reword his verbiage, but that's dead wrong. RGTraynor 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment - I think the issue is not that they aren't reliable, but that they are primary sources. Stringing together primary sources to tell a story is original research. An encyclopedia reports what others have already reported. We aren't doing investigative journalism here. - Crockspot 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: You're misreading WP:OR and WP:SYN. Citing primary sources as backing up an assertion isn't original research. Using those primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research. Citing court papers to do nothing more than certify factual statements such as whether or not Schwarz has won a case and identifying the defendants in her suits, or to attribute direct quotes, is absolutely permissible. Beyond that, there are twenty-four cites to newspaper articles in this article. The investigative journalism's already been done, and those waving the OR! banner are not merely being needlessly officious, they're out of line. RGTraynor 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - "Wikinews is about news". Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not. If you'd like to play investigative reporter, here's not the place. Wikiversity wants original research, cobbled up from primary sources. Again, this isn't the place. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep anybody who says that court papers are not a reliable source must live in a universe very distant from the one the rest of us live in, I have said it in several similar AfD's: The reasons for deletion are:

failing WP:A
failing WP:N
failing WP:V

after taking a day to check, as far as possible from a rock in the middle of the Aegean, this article, unless I missed something, had the wrong glasses on or had a too deep look into my rum bottle ~~this article~~, does neither Alf^Photoman 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep The sources in the article demonstrate that it passes WP:BIO based on the amount of news coverage alone. There are all types of people in the world, many of whom are famous for things they'd rather not be famous for. BLP is not a license to whitewash Wikpedia. Kla'quot 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. She filed a lot of FOIA requests. So what? Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. szyslak (t, c) 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Note: The persistent Afds (four) and WP:BLP/N (seven) and WP:COI/N reports, which are very much like the BLP subject's persistent abuse of process, repeatedly disrupt Wikipedia to no good purpose and really must cease. — Athænara ✉ 07:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- My comments are in talk under Munchausen. Something else must cease, actually. --Justanother 12:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Some of them are in Talk under Munchausen. Totally inappropriate edits and personal attacks like this must cease, I hope. Orsini 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - While I was pretty happy with that as a great comeback, I decided that I did not want to lower myself to the level of rudely "psychoanalysing" my fellow editors. I will leave that inappropriate activity solely to thems that cares to do it. So I removed my effort. You'all can carry on with your Assume Mental Illness efforts, though. I doubt that my objections will dissuade you. You can add them to your Assume Conflict of Interest and just general Assume Bad Faith efforts already in place. --Justanother 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Just another line of attack on Scientology for some anti-Scientologists on WP --Jpierreg 10:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

scuse me, could you explain? I sees something like former member of .... Alf^Photoman 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, scuse me. Alf, we could do without the ad hominem bit. Thanks --Justanother 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith, I was talking about the second paragraph of the Barbara Schwartz article, and in this light it is ...? Alf^Photoman 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize, I thought you were referring to the voter in which case my comment would have been appropriate, I think. In answer to your question, "anti-Scientologists" feel that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology (I do not feel that way for my own private reasons) so inclusion here is part of their attack on Scientology via Wikipedia that I reference in my "Reply to Orsini" above and in the COI sidebar. That they also get to strike back at their Usenet nemesis is thick icing and ice cream on the cake, IMO. Thank you for your interest. --Justanother 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment According to the info box on the page Barbara's article "forms part of a series on Scientology." Steve Dufour 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment and nobody has contested that i.a.w. WP:ATT yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I protested about it on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

so much for guidelines Alf^Photoman 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be that there are different guidelines for Scientology related articles. Steve Dufour 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I will remind you, Justanother, and I will remind Jpierreg whose comments failed to provoke any chiding from you, that ad hominem circumstantial arguments are ad hominem arguments. It amazes me that when you don't even know what point Alf is making but you think Scientologists might not be flattered by it you leap in and chastise him for supposed ad hominem and yet you have no hesitation about accusing "anti-Scientologists" of the worst possible faith, speaking as confidently about their purported malign motivations as if you thought you were a reliable source on the matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Deliberate misuse of process is a favourite troll game."—Wikipedia:What is a troll#Misuse of process. — Æ. ✉ 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - Well, if I see any misuse of process, I will be sure to let you know. --Justanother 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Found one Here. Quote: "baseless listing of users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment"—Wikipedia:What is a troll#Misuse of process. What do I do now? --Justanother 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment - You didn't need to leave this page to find an egregious abuse of process. Please clarify how the subject became non-notable for inclusion in Wikipedia for the purpose of this AfD, when you had previously agreed the subject met the notability threshold. [4] Orsini 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Um - Because, after looking at the article for 10 days after I posted that, I changed my mind: "I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable."[5] Changing one's mind is allowed, isn't it? It is not an egregious abuse of process, is it? Egregious? Laff. --Justanother 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Response - Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. This statement has proven to be false, as an examination of the Talk page and the article itself will reveal. There are four, not "a couple," of print media articles written primarily about the subject's FOIA abuses cited; there are 2 additional WP:RS online newsletters; there is also a secondary mention of the subject in the print media primarily concerning Cyril Vosper, and these are only the English language articles. The exact number of appearances the subject made in the German print media while the subject was the president of scientology in Germany is undetermined, although the subject’s self-published autobiography on a world-wide medium under her own name – this non public person according to you – states media articles appeared about her there. Justanother, this AfD is based on faulty and misleading premises, and has been brought only to remove an article unfavorable to the image of scientology. This AfD is a clear abuse of the Wikipedia article deletion process. Orsini 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - good article, interesting, even loons are notable. There are many other articles more worthy of deletion. --Otheus 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you for your input. All due respect, but the grain pattern in the wood of my coffee table is interesting, too. "Interesting" is not the standard for an article in Wikipedia. I want to be sure that we are not confusing interesting with notable. I agree, there is a lot in Ms. Schwarz' story that is interesting. I could probably tell you a lot about me that would be interesting and I would be interested to know about you, too. Interesting, yes. But that is about it. But it does speak to why she got the little bit of press that she did. News outlets have to fill their papers and their airtime. So they write stories about things that they feel might be interesting. In this case a private person pursuing her private interests for private reasons with "interesting" motivation and to an "interesting" extent. A few local news outlets thought it interesting enough to spend a few paragraphs or a few minutes on. Not even 15 minutes of fame. Two minutes of limited mention, not fame, and a lifetime of exposure here. Seems a bit unbalanced, doesn't it (no pun intended)? --Justanother 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. --Slg r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: - I have personally refrained from commenting with questions below the "delete" votes, and affirmation below the "keep" votes. I hope that the closing Admin and other Admins watching this will note that some other disruptive editors have not, and that posting commentary by a single editor below each of the votes is making this AFD very long and confusing to read. Smee 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep - Or agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology. Paulhorner 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Got anything to back up that claim, Paul? --Justanother 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and how it all works. All I know is that almost every Scientology page I've seen on here has you fighting to the death to keep any negative aspect off it. Not only are you the one debating it till the end, but you are usually the first one to delete the Entheta. How does Admin on Wiki let you get away with this one sided nonsense? Paulhorner 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Paul. I am sure that you will get the hang of it. The first thing to know is that this is not Usenet, this is not your personal web site; you will have to stop lying. Good luck. --Justanother 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, WP:NPA. Please stop your outrageous personal attacks upon ~~edits~~ editors not sharing your pro-scientology POV, and follow WP:AGF with a new editor. Orsini 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly welcome JA! I hope to pick this Wiki thing up soon because it's pretty fun. I do appreciate positive criticism but don't appreciate being called a liar. Please explain to me how I am lying or revert your statement. Paulhorner 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your lies, Paul? I don't have to look far: "agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology" --Justanother 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that a lie? I believe that statement and so do a lot of others here. I think you also know it to be true, you just can't openly admit it because it would disserve your purpose here. That purpose being, is to remove anything negative about Scientology. Paulhorner 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul, when someone thinks that they know all that there is to know about a second person that they just met based on the second person's race, religion, sex, etc., and what they "know" is just negative stereotyping, then that is called bigotry. Instead of bigotry, I suggest that you try WP:AGF. --Justanother 03:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Justanother - Can you please indicate the articles in the past for which you have initiated AfD discussions, and can you please indicate where you have voted to Keep any scientology-related article which was past nominated for AfD? Thanks. Orsini 06:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste my time. Look at my edit history. Nothing to hide - it is all there. --Justanother 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No? As a show of good faith, I held the mistaken belief you might like to proudly exhibit your good editing and neutral POV towards the AfD process of controversial scientology-related materials and thought you would welcome that opportunity, rather than insisting I wade through a flood of edits like the 500 edits made by you since 12:37, 2007 March 5. I do apologize. You have nothing to hide, of course, in the same way needles cannot be hidden in hay stacks. Orsini 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If JA has been doing that he has done a very poor job. :-) Steve Dufour 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to prove to you, Orsini. If you want to know then you pay the tab. You have paid for little of your disruption here with your 14 mainspace edits in 9 months. --Justanother 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! A Scientologist pulling the "Bigotry card" when cornerned. Next I bet you'll talk about your rights to religious freedom or something of that nature. As a new user, I'm saying that all I've seen you do is delete things critical of Scientology. Am I wrong? Do you not delete items critical of Scientology? Do you delete anything in Wikipedia besides articles related to Scientology? I'm curious. Paulhorner 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that damned religious freedom thing. Whose idea was that anyway? My edit history is available to you; just go to my user page and click "User contributions " on the lower left navbar. And if want to discuss this further, have the courtesy to take it to talk. --Justanother 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Must focus on keeping this article available to the public. Paulhorner 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW - Justanother, I'm curious. I said all you were here for was getting negative aspects about the "church" deleted. You said check your "edit history". Was that a bluff? I'm confused. Orsini just mentioned that you've had over 500 edits since March 5th, and to me it all looks Scientology related - nothing in favor of only delete. When I accuse you of "Justanother is only here to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology", you shouldn't get angry. You should just nod your head and agree. It's not a big deal if you're that one sided, I think other people should just be aware of what you're main intention here is. It's the same deal with Barbara Schwarz. People need to be aware of crazy Scientologists. Paulhorner 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One can't help but ask whether your "religious feedom" is a typo or intentional... Raymond Arritt 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that is funny. Thanks for spotting that. Freudian slip, I guess (laff). --Justanother 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(moved from nomination statement - ja) LOL! That's a classic statement. Saying that Barbara Schwarz feels that she is being harmed by anything, especially this article. In Mrs Schwarz's head, she is being harmed by the blades of grass outside watching and plotting against her. Thanks for the laugh, Justanother! Paulhorner 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You say that like it's not true. But I have taped conversations where blades of grass are plotting to overthrow the daisy empire.Wjhonson 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're lucky L Ron Hubbard doesn't speak of any "Daisy Empire" in any secret doctrines or Justanother would delete what you just said. Actually, I've read most of Hubbard's work, and there probably is a "Daisy Empire" somewhere in all that gibberish. Watch what you just said, it could be up for deletion soon.Paulhorner 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure - Edits by sockpuppet User:KadyOHalley of a banned user have been removed again per WP:HARASS (posting of personal information about editors), after being restored by User:Justanother. Orsini 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not keep up with the Barbara Schwarz Usenet trivia and did not realize that anything had been revealed. You should still take it to AN/I instead of making a sockpuppet determination all by your lonesone and deleting posts, though. If you were worried about personal info, you should just remove that, not the whole post, IMO. --Justanother 02:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Response - Justanother, the Wikipedia policy is very clear about attempts of privacy violation of Wikipedia editors who choose to remain anonymous, and admins are not the only editors who may immediately remove such material. Your show of bad faith in restoring the edit of a banned user's sockpuppets is noted. The matter has been reported on ANI. Orsini 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hate is not about what having an article like this in Wikipedia is about. It's about public knowledge and awareness. Barbara Schwarz is currently threatening to sue me over my website religiousfreedomwatch.info and because she says I receive money from a Mr Griffin in Australia for webhosting. If I had no idea who this lady was, I would be worried. Because of this Wiki page and Google it is very easy to find out the lawsuit has no merit.Paulhorner 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Surely such an extreme behavior pattern makes Ms Schwarz notable? Furthermore, the article offers useful information to anyone who may become the object of her unusual attention.

Pentilius 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 4

Comment I sincerely hope Barbara is enjoying this, the record-holder for the *longest AFD on record!* (Ok I just made that up)Wjhonson 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Guess that you haven't noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination) --Justanother 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - There is another AfD that made it through 18 times before it was actually successful. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(18th_nomination)_Vivaldi (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actuallly, the point being made was that the last Brandt AFD was longer than this. It had nothing to do with the number of nominations that Brandt's article had. --65.95.18.143 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. On my computer 85 pages scrolls for Brandt and only 30 here. Not even close. --Justanother 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable for the disruption she causes eveywhere she touches down. Well-documented person in numerous media courses. She doesn't like it? Maybe she should stop drawing attention to herself then. The Kinslayer 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment must be what she has in common with some supporters (smirk) Alf^Photoman 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Recomment - And most (hard-core) detractors (grimace). --Justanother 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep, I fail to see why this should be deleted. The basis for the nominator's arguments seem to center upon a faulty understanding of WP:N and that the subject of the article doesn't want to be on wikipedia. Which is certainly not a good enough reason. What if the Devil is upset about the negative coverage we have of him here, does that mean we shouldn't have that article either? Rather than substantial weight as the nominator suggests, we should give the wishes of subject of the article very little weight unless what the wish is supported by the policies we follow. Either which way, at the very worst I feel this is a matter of the discussion on the talk page of the article and not for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on the devil also seems to fail NPOV. :-) Steve Dufour 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

especially in the devil's opinion, 'cause he claims he does not exist (grin) Alf^Photoman 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

People who are very (rather than borderline) notable don't complain that wikipedia has an article about them. But let me know if we get a complaint from the Devil's advocate. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete I came across this from Devonshire's talk page, and read the article. If she were successful in her litigation, or set a major legal precedent (even in a failed attempt to get information), or if she caused so much trouble that major reforms of the legal system were made, then there'd be a strong case for notability. As it is, however, it borders on exposing the craziness of scientology nuttiness for public ridicule. In general, don't write articles about paranoid living people unless they are truly notable. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Her FOIA ~~abuse~~ quest has resulted in the call for law reform of the FOIA process to prevent similar quests. User:Vivaldi outlined her existing notability. A legal precedent was set here. [6] Orsini 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The ironic thing is that the only people who will ever see this article have already made up their minds on Scientology, so all the efforts of the creators of it are wasted. They would have done much better working on some other project. Steve Dufour 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I respect nonpublic figures' right not to be featured in Wikipedia if they do not wish to be. Grace Note 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Persons who wish to remain nonpublic do not publish a 90 plus part autobiography in a public medium accessable world-wide under their own name. Orsini 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The sources satisfy our increasingly stringent "notability" guildelines like WP:BIO and WP:N. Public figure. --Oakshade 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep based solely on her notable litigation history. This is a disruptive AfD, and Justanother should withdraw it. But the supporters of the article do themselves no favors when they recursively comment on every single input, and both sides have problems with WP:CIVIL. -- TedFrank 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The article is sourced and is notable for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with Usenet. AndroidCat 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Very reluctant Keep. Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious, and made the contrarian in me want to say delete. On reading the article, however, what struck me was the very notable illustration of abuse of process, of what is a beneficial option for citizens. And which makes me amazed that there is nothing on FOIA about the potential for abuse of process. Which makes the link from there to Barbara Schwarz necessary, unfortunately. Shenme 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Appreciate your support and I am glad you voted on the issues not on your outrage. Take care. --Justanother 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the large number of references establishes verifiability and notability as well. TheQuandry 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Notable for her massive, well documented and verifiable abuse of the FOIA, her outrageous public claims, and her massive litigation history make her notable. --Wingsandsword 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia should not be a place for us to work on axe-grinding for off-Wiki disputes. Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[7] Subject of the article is mostly non-notable, except for a flurry of discussion on the pro or anti-Scientology blogosphere. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject -- its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. Leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is not a battleground MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:08, 17 March 2007 (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. Bucketsofg 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9fans

Non-notable mailing list. There is a complete lack of secondary sources on the subject. Googling brings up a total of only 33 unique google hits. This has never been written about by a reliable secondary source. Just because several notable people have supposedly posted messages to a mailing list does not make it notable/encyclopedic by any stretch. Delete as lacking any secondary sources. Wickethewok 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, NN mailing list about a little-known (outside certain circles) operating system. No sources, fails WP:ATT. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable mailing list; no citations, no sources, no verification of notability.--TBCΦtalk? 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-verifiable, non-notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough to deserve an article; no secondary references. utcursch | talk 11:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails to show/proove notability. - Denny 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; violates WP:Attribution --Mhking 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Very few if any hits on google, non notable, no secondary references. Pete Shan osky 23:01, 11 March 2007 (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 Weak Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics and evolutionary psychology

This article isn't about anything. Or, its title is an unencyclopedic intersection of two things, and its content is mostly something else entirely. It's like having an article titled potatoes and cheese that talks about whether or not cows will eat yams.

The article describes, briefly, several evolutionary phenomena that are almost entirely unrelated to ethics. The single sentence that does attempt to make a connection has a {{fact}} tag. Arguments like what this article is trying to advance - that kin selection and reciprocal altruism are relevant as formative processes in the evolution of human psychology - have been made in the literature, but aren't covered at all here, and belong in the evolutionary psychology article in any case. This is an AfD instead of a merge tag because there's really nothing here worth preserving, and the title's worthless as a redirect. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research between two mildly related articles. The article has sources on ethics and sources on evolutionary psychology, but—as of now—none on the relationships between the two.--TBCΦtalk? 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep The title is wrong: it should be "Evolutionary ethics" but I do not want to move it during the AfD. (There is a name problem, because of an article "Evolutionary Ethic", meaning something altogether different.) Under the right title, there are 80,000 ghits, most of them real, starting off with the article "Evolutionary ethics" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as R an S as it is possible to get. There is many books, and I haven't even started looking for journal articles--There's one back in 1895! They are in journals of philosophy mainly, but also psychology religion, and biology. (It is in fact so well known that the creationists have been writing articles against it. I'll add one for NPOV) , This is an elementary but still encyclopedic article, well sourced. and the books in the reference list are exactly on point. Evolutionary psychology is a very much broader topic. It would be good to have a much more detailed explanation, of course, but the article can and should be improved. If it is notable and sourced, there is no basis for deletion. I added a landmark article. I'll add Stanford and a few dozen books or so tomorrow., DGG 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article can use improvement, but the subject of evolutionary ethics and the question of why ethical behavior has evolved are, as the article's Further reading section shows, encyclopedic topics and not original research. As DGG has suggested, it would not be at all difficult to find and add additional sources. — Elembis (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of turning up sources, but of using sources to write an article. Remove the irrelevant cruft from this article and what's left might be enough to qualify as a stub called "Evolutionary ethics". The references are nice, but renaming this article to "List of sources that could be useful in writing an article about Evolutionary ethics" just doesn't seem to be a real option. Pete.Hurd 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment but I'm not claiming that this is original research; I mentioned above that the evolution of ethics in human psychology has been discussed is a legitimate subject. (Maybe the potatoes and cheese was too cutesy to make the intended point ;) I am, however, claiming that a) such content belongs in evolutionary psychology (which is a total mess, but that's beside the point), and b) this article is so devoid of content that it's useless as a seed of the appropriate coverage. Sometimes nothing is better than something, and this article so thoroughly fails to document its intended subject - from the title to the reading list - that it's not worth keeping 'until someone expands it'. Do you not agree that an article on the evolution of ethics that basically consists of 'kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and group selection might exist' is useless? It's as if protein contained 'Protein is a chemical found in meat. Amino acids are small molecules that are zwitterions.' (Is that a better analogy?) Opabinia regalis 07:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What I liked about the article at first glance was the careful effort at sourcing it. Most of the vague subject articles we tend to see here don't have good sourcing--if they have any at all; here, the ed. got most of the classics. The article can be expanded--there are a lot of details to talk about. Kin selection is obvious once you understand it, but not otherwise. And the balance been altruism with respect to different size units (band/population/species) can create some interesting dilemmas--both with apes and with people. . The problem in writing an article is picking out which examples to present. I think we have a usable outline. If the general art. is as bad as you say, it might be better to keep new content separate---but this is an editing question we dont have to bother everybody with. I've been doing AfDs too long--I may try some writing for a change. DGG 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I don't find the sources particularly compelling - nothing from Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, for example, who largely initiated and popularized the field. Selfish Gene and most of Trivers' early work really have nothing to do with this, except that they informed later hypotheses about the evolution of ethics. Shermer's book is pop-science, good for a further reading list but not much good as a source. It'd be great if you want to write a good article on the topic, but it's hard to imagine that this material would be useful to work from. Opabinia regalis 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep And rename as suggested. - Denny 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Opabinia has it right, the topic is not unencyclopedic, but the article is exceptionally poor. Contra DGG it is very poorly sourced, there is only one sourced statement in the whole article. That the Further reading section contains all the classics (could also do with Lee Dugatkin's Cheating Monkeys and Citizen Bees IMHO) does not equal a well referenced article. As TBC points out, there is no reference linking the two aspects, and therefore the article qualifies as OR by synthesis. The lead section could form the core of a proper article, were it properly referenced (at least the first sentence absolutely must be supported by a reliable source). The rest of the article is a really poor collection of thumbnail sketches of other "main" articles on related topics which together do nothing to support the claims made in the lead section. It would be a very good thing if DGG wrote a decent article to replace this, but it's current state is unacceptably poor. Pete.Hurd 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Opabinia regalis - this article does not document its subject at all. There is nothing to merge and its useless as a redirect anywhere - so it should be deleted until a real article can be written. If anything, it almost seems like a POV fork from Evolutionary psychology, because the author writes about about the ethical question and then tries to make connections for which there are no citations. --Mus Musculus 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep/Merge. This article (apparently) is a discussion of "evolutionary ethics" and should be merged with the existant (but stubby) article of the same name. Evolutionary ethics is a significant area of research - I count at least a dozen textbooks from notable university presses on the subject including Farber (1994) The Temptations of Evolutionary Ethics and Bradie (1994)The Secret Chain: Evolution and Ethics. A merge tag and cleanup tag are more appropriate. Irene Ringworm 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

comment Evolutionary ethics redirects to evolutionary ethic, which is another page of unacceptably poor quality containing nothing to do with the (totally encyclopedic) topic of "Evolutionary ethics" after the first sentence. Pete.Hurd 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
comment As Pete Hurd points out, to get the result intended, it would be by keeping & renaming the page. As for "Evolutionary ethic", I will AfD it immediately upon finishing discussion of this page; just waiting to avoid confusion. DGG 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unreferenced POV fork--Sefringle 04:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. OR POV essay.--ZayZayEM 03:21, 16 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth Hacks

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB Cman 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per my reasonings mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEWar.--TBCΦtalk? 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No reliable sources about it - fails WP:ATT. Wickethewok 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, I cannot find reliable sources Alf^Photoman 12:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per sources found by DGG Alf^Photoman 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources pertaining to notability. JDoorjam JDiscourse 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep A valuable web site, and much used in a constructive way, judging from the number of downloads of interesting files. Not a commercial site--not part of the google-empire. 147,000 ghits for the phrase, almost all of them real. There are even secondary sites talking about this one.

Since the WP page has been removed before this discussion has closed. I add the references,:

There is now actually a commercially published book from Wiley, an academic publisher: Brown, Martin C. "Hacking Google Maps and Google Earth" (2006) July 2006 ISBN 0-471-79009-5 that includes it: Wiley description of book
and search engine watch, signed article
and a number of listings of its use for academic courses, etc. :listing in NC course about GE, listing in Geological Society of America page about GE, Royal Geographical Society, Geology professor's page at University of Wisconsin " , and another 120 from .edu I haven't looked at yet. DGG 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- These references are on hacking Google Earth, not "Google Earth Hacks" the website.--TBCΦtalk? 04:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. As TBC mentions above, the citations listed by DGG are about the topic of hacking Google Earth, not about this particular web site. --Mus Musculus 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The book is about the topic in general; the others are pages where use of this program use is recommended or described. DGG 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a program though. It's a website.--TBCΦtalk? 08:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to see the page kept up, but I think it should refer more to actual 'google earth hacks', rather than the website, apparently of that name.Cloveoil 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Merge anything vaguely useful on Google Earth hacking with Google Earth--ZayZayEM 03:25, 16 March 2007 (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. Lot's of thanks to Codex Sinaiticus who actually did the merge. Selket ^Talk 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria

Prod deleted; article has had a merge template for about a year. The talk page says that all content is redundant, but I have not investigated this claim. No opinion. Selket ^Talk 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Seems more appropriate for Wiktionary. Although a reference to a 1911 encyclopedia is made, no specific volume or page number is provided. I believe it fails WP:A and WP:NOT. Alan.ca 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not an instruction manual on how to properly read and write the names of Babylonia or Assyria.--TBCΦtalk? 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge. The talk page states, "Trust me, this is straight up from the 1911 EB. In Wikipedia's infancy days, long before I got here, there was apparently this mammoth-sized 1911 article entitled 'Babylonia and Assyria' that was way out of date... Anyway, in I think approximately 2002, someone came up with the idea of splitting this behemoth up into component parts. This chunk received the title it has now: Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria. The original version was produced with scanning equipment, meaning some words were misread or appeared as jumbled symbols. Many of the vestiges of that original break-up have been more appropriately dealth with since then, but this one still has not. That is why the best proposals so far seem to be to carefully merge anything that isn't outdated, with the abovementioned articles." This suggests to me that there are parts of this article that have not yet been merged into the other articles on this subject. LastChanceToBe 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article on a linguistic topic is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. A merge might be better, but it looks like no-one is eager to do it. Spacepotato 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge - I made the above-quoted comment on the talkpage yesterday, and have been in favor of merging for the last year, but this is a neglected, obscure corner of the wikipedia, and there are many more urgent priorities... Now with this sort of 'push' (wiktionary certainly is not the answer!) I will make every attempt to complete the merge myself over the next few days, before any actual info disappears down the memory hole. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, lads -- I've just gone ahead and done the merge as requested a year ago. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:27, 11 March 2007 (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 into Sylvia Anderson and Gerry Anderson. KrakatoaKatie 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia and Gerry Anderson

Delete - redundant to the articles on the individual people, the production company and the various projects. There was a decision made to split the contents between the articles for Gerry and Sylvia but it does not appear that any work's been done on that since June 2006 and information is being added back to this article. In the face of the many other articles that cover this territory, this article should be deleted. Otto4711 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Article content has been merged. The GFDL requires keep. When there are "other articles that cover this territory", your first port of call should be Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD. Uncle G 09:57, 11 March 2007 (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. KrakatoaKatie 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux kernel mailing list

Internet mailing list with no useful information available from reliable sources. There was a VFD back in 2004 apparently (see the article talk page). Nothing really can be said about this except a rephrasing of the title. Delete as such. (new note: a merge would also be ok i think, this just doesn't need its own article) Wickethewok 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I've expanded the article with references. It's the main mailing list for Linux kernel development. All the patches/releases are announced on LKML; it's the main place for all discussions/arguments . Many media sources quote messages and posts from LKML[8][9]. Every single kernel maintainer (and probably every developer) subscribes to the list. utcursch | talk 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the articles just mention the mailing list and really don't say much about it. The article's only content is really that the subscribers are people who work on Linux and the fact that it is about Linux stuff. The list is probably notable, but I don't really see this article ever being substantial enough to warrant its own article. Perhaps this could be merged somewhere like into an article about linux kernel development? Wickethewok 06:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind it being merged with Linux kernel, but it's already oversized. Also, many other articles link to this article and its redirect page (LKML). utcursch | talk 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Add ext link to Linux kernel. Shyamal 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment. Nothing so far has met the Wikipedia:Notability (web) requirements of multiple independent secondary sources. Apparently that would need at least a couple of books or journal articles that deal with the list itself as the subject and not mere citations to postings on it. Dealing with a notable subject or having notable people etc. would not make it notable. Perhaps a policy change can make this notable though. Shyamal 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notability is established with references. MaxSem 16:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge I would easily consider the Kerneltraffic site to be a reliable source as to some of the details of this list, and if not them, there are plenty of other books on linux on the shelves. Thus at least one should offer some sources. However, it could be merged as a section on Linux kernel which oddly doesn't mention it. Very odd that. Mister.Manticore 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Very notable. - Denny 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom. --History Fan 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Although a "mailing list" may seem anachronistic to some, this particular list is populated and maintained by a who's who of the Linux community including the man himself. Anything worth knowing about Linux development is communicated on this list, and the many citations in the article back that up. --Mus Musculus 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. After actually looking at the article, one finds that this is not just a generic mailing list and that the article is ridiculously well-sourced. Keep per WP:WEB. -- Black Falcon 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - notable discussion forum. Thue | talk 22:03, 16 March 2007 (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 redirect, no attributable information to merge. The keep arguments were largely based on flawed reasoning, making redirect - especially when official policy is cited - a more strong argument in forming consensus. - Daniel Bryant 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skeletor vs Beastman

Fan homage to song by novelty band Gnarkill. Redir to band article was reverted. Deiz talk 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Gnarkill.--TBCΦtalk? 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Gnarkill. Good song though, probably their most famous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per comments above. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are many other pages for songs that have much less information than this. Example: Carousel (Song). Blitz Tiger 14:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The "A exists, so why not B?" argument is never valid, articles must stand on their own merits. It's also not about volume of information, rather whether such information is a) sourced and b) enyclopedic. The closing admin may well disregard your opinion if you fail to address policy and guideline concerns. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Don't redirect it, leave it as its own article. It's a well-known song and probably Gnar Kill's most famous, so just leave it be. There thousands of articles about hit singles and songs that have developed a cult status, so why not let this one have its own page? I'll trim it down and make it look a little more professional, but just leave it be.ElCapitanKyle 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ElCapitanKyle created the article in question, and has made very few other contributions to Wikipedia. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deiz, if you would specifically inform us of the "policy and guideline concerns" we are violating, the authors of the article in question (myself and Blitz Tiger) would be more than happy to make the necessary changes...

I'd say put WP:ATT (includes verifiability, original research and reliable sources) and WP:N at the top of your reading list. Deiz talk 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, a little clarification was all I wanted. I will make those changes as soon as I get home from work later tonight. ElCapitanKyle 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to gnarkill. I doubt external reliable sources can be found to warrant its own article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. per above.--Parsleyjones 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can it at least be a stub? Other Gnarkill songs are stubs. Can't this one be too? ElCapitanKyle 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled. If the band are notable and reliable sources are available, why doesn't the same follow for what (we are told) is their most famous song? --kingboyk 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of their notability stems from their famous members (Bam Margera et al) and appearances in their projects. Its not exactly a serious band. The song certainly exists, and is one of their more infamous moments among fans, but practically everything in the article is OR from watching videos and fan/forum CKY memes. Deiz talk 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up. Surely sources are available? Was it released as a single and did it chart? All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) (obscure UK indie pressing) is an FA so any notable song ought to be able to achieve the same. --kingboyk 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you realize what level this is all on, we're talking seriously obscure bedroom production. Afaik there's no single, certainly no charting and apparently no sources for any of this. Were this brought in line with policy I couldn't see any sensible option other than to redirect the sub-stub to the band article, but as that was contested I really had to send it here. Deiz talk 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up. --kingboyk 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep- My question, Deiz, is why are you are making such an enormous issue out of this? Just drop it. I don't mean this as a personal attack, I'm just puzzled as to why you so adamantly insist this subject does not deserve its own article. So what if it wasn't a hit single or ever made it to the charts? It's an extremely funny song that has become the quintessential Bam Margera/CKY crew work- hilarious, creative, and totally tasteless. Not to mention that it is a pretty well written article. --Der Kapitän 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, well written? How about well sourced? Well verified? Not original research? Read WP:ATT and explain how this article fits any of our content policies. And, just to reiterate, I founded WP:CKY and am well aware of how this fits into the CKY universe. It just doesn't fit into Wikipedia. Deiz talk 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Other articles that have the things you site are often tagged as such, and given time to improve. I'm not sure why you immediately went to just get rid of it. Blitz Tiger 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An AfD lasts 5 days, plenty of time to load "Skeletor vs Beastman" into google and see how many reliable sources you can come up with. Deiz talk 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, Deiz, but it's pretty much unsourcable. It is what it is; you can't find many in-depth analyses on it, considering it isn't exactly "high art" (although some would disagree). I can see why you dont think this topic should have a full length article, but what about a stub? 146.186.128.233 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "stub" as opposed to an "article" in the sense of an article of lower notability or importance, articles can be temporarily "stubbified" to remove damaging or controversial statements, or where a great deal of unsourced material is removed but some sources do indicate notability (Chris Raab being a recent example), neither of which applies here. Redirection does not necessarily mean deletion, and if reliable sources establishing the notability of the song were discovered in the future the page could theoretically be recreated if substantially improved. Deiz talk 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. "it's pretty much unsourcable" says it all. --kingboyk 15:14, 15 March 2007 (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 redirect. Keeps everyone happy :) - no applicable content, nor consensus, to merge. Daniel Bryant 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Dillinger

Delete - non-notable performer on pro wretling shows, non-notable video game character. Do not appear to be sources attestign to his notability. Otto4711 06:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to World Championship Wrestling.--TBCΦtalk? 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Back when I was watching WCW, his name would get occasionally mentioned on air in reference to his security gig. That's about all he's ever been. Getting five seconds on TV on the occasional Monday night isn't notable. RGTraynor 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton County Democratic Party

Non-notable county political organization per WP:ORG rogerd 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just delete the damn article. You people obviously have nothing better to do. It's no wonder people vandalize this site. User:Kaclock

Delete per nom. I don't see any outside references that would establish notability. Mwelch 07:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I am the author of this article. I fail to see how an article on a major political party is not notable. Any newspaper in Central Indiana or TV news media in Indianapolis, Indiana could be an outside reference. If this particular article on a political party isn't notable, what makes any of the political party articles notable? There are over 100 articles on each of the state party organizations. Will those be deleted as well? I don't think so. I have been thanked many times for this article. It would be a disservice to delete it. There are plenty of wasteful articles on Wikipedia to be concentrating on. User:Kaclock 15:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Comment - Huh? "over 100 articles on each of the state party organizations" - 50 states X 2 parties (unless you include other parties) X 100 articles on each = 10,000 articles on state party organizations. I am not sure what you mean. --rogerd 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to pick my grammar apart, but you know what I mean. Stick to the issue at hand here. How are the 100+ articles on other political party organizations any different from this article? User:Kaclock 21:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I wasn't picking your grammar apart. I was trying to read what you said and understand what you meant. It would be easier for all concerned if you simply said what you meant. As far as I know, there are no articles about any party organizations below the state level, except for Tammany Hall, which was an historic political machine that no longer exists. --rogerd 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A county political party organization is not per se notable. There are certainly exceptions: Tammany Hall and the Cook County machine are both clearly notable, but this one doesn't qualify. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a county political organization not a state organization. This is not one of the major counties in Indiana from what I can tell (Is Indianapolis in this county?). I don't even think the Cook County Democratic Party has an article. I may create one though. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- What makes a difference between an article on a state organization and a county organization? In the same breath you want to delete this article, you say you may create an article on your county's Democratic Party. That's certainly hypocritical. To answer your question, Hamilton County is the fourth largest county by population in Indiana. It is a suburb of Indianapolis. Hamilton County is one of the fastest growing counties in the Midwest. User:Kaclock 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EST)
  - Delete as WP:V (no sources other than their own website) and NN. If you can't figure out the difference between the notability of a state and a county organization, we're unlikely to be able to help you. As far as your charge of hypocrisy, there's a world of difference between a suburban county with a population of 240,000 and the county with the 2nd highest population in the United States, with a decades-old nationally known reputation as a byword for Democratic machine politics. RGTraynor 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. As TonyTheTiger stated, county parties do not need articles unless they are notable (or infamous) by independent media coverage. A scholarly search reveals no evidence of this particular organization doing anything notable. --Mus Musculus 15:12, 12 March 2007 (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reggae Reggae Sauce

non notable product. The sauce is only on sale in one country, in one chain of stores, which does not reflect an accurate world-view. Indeed, that store has only stocked it in limited amounts, and only for less than 4 days now. A single mention by the BBC does not make a product notable. This article was speedily deleted by myself earlier, and this is a recreation that is unfortunately no better than the previous version because exactly Zero notablilty has been established. There's not notability for the company, for the sauce, hell even the singer it's named after wouldn't meet WP:BAND. Until this article achieves some REAL notability worldwide, or even significant notability in the UK (which it hasn't), it should remain off wikipedia. Perhaps on "wikicondiments" if there were such a thing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Dragons' Den along with Levi Roots, the creator of the sauce.--TBCΦtalk? 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note It would contribute nothing to the Dragons' Den article. No other product is discussed on that page. Why this non-notable one?⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - From what I've read, it seems that Levi Roots was one of the contestants on Dragon's Den, and it was the sauce which won him his award (an investment by a group of business experts referred to as the "Dragons") as well as all the media coverage mentioned below.--TBCΦtalk? 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - notable product. There are multiple references from reliable sources. The article contains more than just "a single mention by the BBC" and google news currently has 24 references to news articles about the product [10].Should have creator's article merged in though (Levi Roots). --J2thawiki 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- NoteActually that link only provided 16 valid links. Hardly notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Note This link now has 25 news articles [11]. How many reliable sources does an article need to be notable? --J2thawiki 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Levi Roots, who is also a musician. There is a fair bit of coverage.--Conjoiner 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge with Levi Roots article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I live in a cave and even I have heard of it. --kingboyk 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand why the nominator is saying that the article should be deleted because the product "is only on sale in one country.....which does not reflect an accurate world-view". I didn't realise we could only have articles on products which are available worldwide. White Castle hamburger restaurants only exist in the USA, does that mean their article should go too.....? ChrisTheDude 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also dispute the assertion that it has not gained notability in the UK - the story has been featured in the news on every major television channel and in most newspapers, and Mr Roots has appeared on multiple talk shows discussing the whole episode..... ChrisTheDude 13:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep It is on sale in a major supermarket in the UK. It has had extensive recent media coverage in a variety of places. The musician who created it is notable for having been nominated for MOBO award, which justifies his own page separate to the product. I have never heard of White Castle hamburgers mentioned above but that doesn't mean I'd want the page deleted.Tilefish 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - there are multiple independent sources where the sauce in question is the focus of the article: Croydon Guardian, Daily Record, and Metro News are a sample. -- Whpq 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - another bit of evidence for "notable" - an interview with Roots on LBC - [12] Doctorbob 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - yeah... you can't really ask for a hot sauce to be any more notable. Jono (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - National media coverage is pretty darn notable. Article could do with improving, though, but you could say that of any article. Markusdragon 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - National Media coverage.. and it's one of the fastest product launches i've ever seen to boot. --ACE Spark 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - loads of media interest, its been selling out in supermarkets, and may take over the world(!) Starguitar 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Someone from Tallahassee, Florida says that a product isn't notable enough in the UK... right. I think British people know better. I don't see why he wants to delete it despite the media coverage and nationwide launch... surely there are many people who will hear about it on the radio or see it on TV and want to find out what the product is, which is exactly where Wikipedia comes in, for neutral information. It's not a 'pop knowledge' site, for popular items only. It's a knowledge resource - all knowledge for all who want to know. Saying that, this product is not obscure. MathiasFox 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Ah yes, you must be well aware of the many times I've been to the UK, or the several colleagues and collaborators I have from the UK who have never heard of this product? When did this become Britopedia? People from the UK are constantly complaining that American-centric articles "do not represent a world view"....well guess what, neither does this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:35, 16 March 2007 (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 Jennifer Aniston nude err... I mean Speedy Delete - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vodei Multimedia Processor

Unverifiable, no reliable sources available, non-notable software J. M. 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it comes down to three possibilities: An accurate article, an article that serves to direct traffic to the software creator, or deletion. After carefully weighing these possibilities, I'd prefer the first choice, however, as it has been explained to me that Wikipedia is not about accuracy, that is not a possibility. Option number two is in conflict with Wikipedia standards according to this page. It is then my alternative choice that the article be removed and blocked from being recreated until reputable sources can be found. Until then, if someone wants accurate information, they can frequent MultimediaWiki for Their article. Posting an article that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines appears to be incompatable with posting a truthful article in this case. With that in mind, this subject can do nothing but damage the reputation of Wikipedia.Qabala 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability for this ~~company~~ software. --Mus Musculus 15:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vodei Multimedia Processor is not a company. —J. M. 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does having 557,000 results in Google and a bunch of forum discussions count? —Kn0wItAll 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No. "Jennifer Aniston nude" has 2,130,000 results in Google. Does that mean we need an article about it? Now excuse me while I go review the results. --Mus Musculus 14:25, 13 March 2007 (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, could even have been considered a G7. Protection not required. - Daniel Bryant 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otaku's Dream Mix

A fan-made Stepmania mix which has no reliable sources written about it, failing WP:ATT's source requirements. The only references are to the group's website. Delete. Wickethewok 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the primary writer of this article. Wikipedia does allow primary sources per WP:ATT. No specialist knowledge is needed to check these facts: one need only download the pack and see the names of all members included in the project. One need only click the external link to otakusdream.com to see that, in fact, Jubo is the leader because it's his site and he says so ^_^ . One need only click the WhoIs.net reference to prove the registration date as true. I believe this article passes WP:ATT's criterion for primary sources. Neither does the article violate WP:OR as it does not make any attempts to assert a claim. Keep. --Naruttebayo 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Even if it is verifiable, it is definitely non-notable. --Mus Musculus 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It doesn't at all pass the primary source test, which is reliable sources written about it, not the mere fact that it exists. Beyond that, "[e]dits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." RGTraynor 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I concede at the request of Jubo. Please delete/protect the article page, whatever is deemed appropriate. --Naruttebayo 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A protect is certainly not necessary. Wickethewok 04:51, 13 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Leet, Hong Kong Leet

Interesting, but completely unsupported by reliable, third party sources. Fails verifiability standards. RFerreira 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am certain that these are legitimate topics, however, a result of googling them returns many foreign-language pages that could probably be resources. I would be more comfortable getting the input of an Internet-savvy person who can read a decent amount of Japanese or Cantonese, and having them validate the respective subjects. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so based on Lord Metroid's comment I'm voting keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep It is as Ikiroid points out a legitimate topic. Under my years of living in Japan I was introduced to this topic and quite amazed of its existence. I see no legitimate reason for deleting the article as it is a very real concept and used in the same way as western leet which an article exists for. The article doesn't need a deletion it needs to an improvement drive. Lord Metroid 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Scholarly search reveals no evidence of notability or any reliable sources. --Mus Musculus 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you expect an internet meme to yield any scholarly scources? Wikipedia has plenty of articles on internet-related phenomena, yet much of it does not appear in anything found in the conventional library. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

De-leet Japanese Leet, either by moving the page to Kusachū-go or merging and redirecting to Gyaru-moji. This is an invented neologism; there are no reliable sources that use this title. (As far as I'm concerned, the Japanese title is a neologism too, but at least it's a term that's in use.) I apparently made a comment to this effect at Talk:Japanese Leet on January 3, although I had completely forgotten about it since then. No opinion on Hong Kong Leet. Dekimasuよ! 02:23, 13 March 2007 (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 as non-notable biography; redirected to The_Impressions (Australian_band). That the individual who nominated this for deletion did so from a single-purpose account does not decrease the merit of the argument that the individual is not notable outside the notability of the band. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel_Broderick

There is no reason why someone as insignificant as this needs to be in Wikipedia. It looks as if he made the page himself. Dan broders 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a non-notable vanity page. Dramatically overstates this person's importance in Melbourne. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment I just noticed: is this a bad faith nomination? Why is the nom's username the same as the person in the article, and why was his first post this AfD? -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:SPA account nom. DXRAW 12:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment It might have something to do with this edit. Can anyone find evidence that Daniel Broderick is the 'award winning author' of anything, btw? I haven't found anything about the band after a brief look either. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now per SPA aacount nom. Alf^Photoman 15:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Unable to find any reliable sources via Google for the man's writing award (searched ["Daniel Broderick" award*] finding multiple references to an award named after an American attorney, but nothing useful, and ["Daniel Broderick" author OR writer] comes up with us at the top, and nothing that looks like a short story in the first 20 hits. As for his playing in the band, searching ["Daniel Broderick" Impressions -wikipedia] gives 34 total 24 unique hist, which are by the majority Wikipedia clones (despite the neg qualifier) or where the word Impression does not appear to be used in the context of a band name. Google News has nothing recent for an Australian musician. As such, delete as externally unverifiable at this time, and possibly failing the Wikipedia:Notability guideline and sub-guidelines. -- saberwyn 20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Is "Keep because I don't trust the nominator" a valid reason against deletion in cases that aren't blatant vandalism? -- saberwyn 20:53, 11 March 2007 (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, no consensus to merge. Any further merge discussions should take place on the talk page of the article. - Daniel Bryant 10:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levi Roots

Along with Reggae Reggae Sauce. I've speedily deleted before for CSD A7 no assertion of notabiltiy. Even as it exists now it is still highly non-notable. Does not meet WP:BAND as far as I can tell, nor does his business meet notability guidelines. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Reggae Reggae Sauce. The latter is clearly notable as shown by the number of reliable sources about it and the creator (at least 25 at [13]) --J2thawiki 11:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Change vote to Keep. Subject seems notable in his own right due to interviews about his music and MOBO nomination --J2thawiki 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge Reggae Reggae Sauce with this biographical article - Levi Roots also has a musical career.--Conjoiner 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge As suggested. - Denny 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep A Google search [14] returns 31,600 hits, and a search for his name without any reference to sauce or Dragon's Den still turns up 13,400 hits. [15] While the sauce might just be a flash in the pan, I'd still say that makes him a somewhat notable musician. --DaveJB 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep respected and MOBO-nominated Reggae musician and with the addition of his successful appearance on Dragons' Den makes him easily notable enough. Driller thriller 16:44, 13 March 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volapuk encoding

This article has been marked as lacking reliable sources since December 2005. Suggest deletion per our policy on verifiability unless this can be remedied within the week. RFerreira 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:A Alf^Photoman 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
keep. This assault of militant and lazy ignorance, probably coupled with lack of respect to cultures other than American, is simply outrageous. Don't you have enough trolls and vandals to fight? `'mikka 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing outrageous about trying to uphold our verifiability standards, and citing an e-mail message isn't really providing a reliable source. Please adjust your tone. RFerreira 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes it is a reliable source. It is not a private email or blog entry. It is an official document of a e-mail provider about its own real, existing and verifiable service it took money for. I am not asking to adjust yoiur deletionist attitude, since it is obviously useless: your effort here is not to add information, but to find excuses to delete it, and in my understanding this borders with vandalism. `'mikka 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Temporary keep for now there is a Russian source which I cannot read. We should ask someone who can read the source to tell us whether it is reliable or not. Wooyi 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I verified with an Russian-literate editor, NYC JD, that the citation given is just a service announcement for botik.ru. It has nothing to do with the topic of the article. No reliable sources, nothing verifiable here. --Mus Musculus 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes it has to do with the topic. Ant it is reliable source: it is from Russian e-mail provider not some blog. This "just service announcement" contains certain information that validates several statements from the article where it is quoted. This aggression of ignorance is appalling. `'mikka 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep. It's certainly real and IMO "verifiable", though it's currently not "verified" from reliable sources and is more than a little bit original research. I think Mikkalai is taking this one a little too close to heart. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I am taking this close to the heart, because it is not the first time Russia-relaed articles are placed for deletion. A number of them were started in early wikipedia days of 2003-2004, when there was no such zeal of referring every line of text, especiall if the subject was valid and non-controversial. And running amok today deleting everything that does not fit todays's standard on a short notice is not fair. Some wikipedians became too obsessed with the role of a broom forgetting about due diligence of checking facts. The article in question is easily convertible into a verifiable stub: the topic is clearly not a hoax and its existence is verifiable. It is not surprizing that the term left little trace in 'net: its "active life" was about 15 years, and Soviet Union was not exactly internet giant. `'mikka 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. In point of fact, it is the responsibility of the authors and editors involved in the creation of an article to properly source it, and complaining that we can't delete an article just because there's no proof of its assertions is flat out wrong: that's what AfD is for in the first place. If you're so certain the article is valid, I'm sure you would have no problem finding verifiable sources for our review. RGTraynor 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- "per nom" my ass. Did you happen to notice that I started the addition of references with proofs of assertions already? Or you only read nominations and article titles only? And someone wants me to tone down. `'mikka 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Tend to your own knitting, sir. We are well within our rights to decide for ourselves whether the single reference this article contains is credible and represents suitable verification. Until it is in a language we can read -- this being the English-language Wikipedia, last time I checked -- I don't find it to be, and given the extreme and unwarranted hostility of your tone, you'll perhaps forgive us if we ask for translators who are a bit less heavily biased. RGTraynor 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - <shrug> . It is not my fault that Russian wikipedians don't give a slightest damn about the history of their own internet. Probably a national peculiarity, similar to the American one, who don't know the origin of the word O.K.. Anyway, I added several more references, including one published book. And these "a bit less heavily biased" translators, as well as quite heavily biased deletionists may as well learn to use google to ckeck basic facts. Once again, we are not talking about a hoax or vandalism. We are talking about inherent laziness, when it is much easier to delete a quite interesting fact from internet history than to help colleagues out. `'mikka 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I left a message at the Russian wikipedians' notice board. And this is my last involvement in this page. If they will not respond, I cannot care less. `'mikka 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This seems to be properly sourced to me. The source is in Russian, but not all sources are in English. Wikiolap 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep --Duk 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the multiple sources added since the AFD began. I agree with RGTraynore about the bias of interpreters, but the fact that NYC JD has suggested the topic is real and verifiable motivates me to suggest keeping. In the end, I was swayed by the fact that a significant portion of the argument to "delete" the article even now that it's been referenced stems from the notion that non-English sources somehow contribute less toward verification. Knowledge of a foreign language is equivalent to possessing technical expertise in a subject. I'm sure I lack the knowledge to understand the content of some of the sources noted at quantum physics, but I will certainly not try to discredit these sources based on that. I maintain that this was a valid AFD nomination, but believe its concerns have been sufficiently addressed to warrant keeping the article for further/future improvement. -- Black Falcon 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Black Falcon -- xompanthy 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of samples used by Boards of Canada

I absolutely love BoC, but this article is a painful amount of trivial information and original research. The last AFD was here (which was apparently when it was a list of lyrics or something?). Barely anything is sourced, and the parts that are are just links to the possible original source material. Removing all of the unsourced material, you're left with a microstub at best. Delete as trivia and original research. Wickethewok 07:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- I'm also a big BoC fan, however, this is not going to be verifiable, and is really just original research. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- Interesting, but unsourced and really doesn't belong here. Thunderbunny 03:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there are other websites where this sort of info can go. Recury 14:30, 13 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo NSider Forums

Has been tagged as needing sources since November 2006. No sources have been forthcoming. Fails WP:ATT. Carolfrog 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, possible Merge into main Nintendo article. Rambling, unsourced article going into gigantic and excruciating detail describing, well, that it's a gaming forum, and my, it has categories and topics and ranks users per number of posts they've made. My uncertainty about a Merge comes from that the main Nintendo article, either as a "See also" or an external link, doesn't acknowledge this forum at all; possibly it isn't as important as all of that even in the eyes of Nintendo itself? RGTraynor 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Keep, the NSider is notable given it has received recognition from Nintendo Power, but the article itself lacks resources and references to back up claims; See WP:Verify and WP:original research. Unless users can turn up some reliable references, I'd say its best redirect the article to Nintendo, under some GCN section - as the NSider was originally created to promote Nintendo products around that time - or so NP claimed -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 18:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. All it needs is more refs. It is too big of an article to merge with Nintendo. To RGTraynor: You're forgetting that Wikipedia isUSER EDITED. The only reason that the Nintendo article doesn't link to Nsider is because nobody added it, not necessarily because Nintendo doesn't think it's important. Joiz ^A. Shmo 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Companies routinely have people monitoring Wikipedia nowadays; I doubt a computer corporation Nintendo's size fails to do so. I agree that an article that size shouldn't be merged with the main article. Where I disagree is that the exhaustive list of features (much like those of every other forum) is worth including. RGTraynor 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Nintendo after trimming the unencyclopedic, unverifiable content which comprises about 95% of the article. --SubSeven 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge after trimming. And by trimming, I mean removing everything except the "Creation" paragraph. --Mus Musculus 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge: I've been looking at the articles for other online forums, and the sections on Nsider's structure are significantly longer than most articles. Let's trim and merge like others are saying. -PsychoYoshi 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
~~No merge. This would be completely out of place in the Nintendo article. Keep or delete. --- RockMFR 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)~~

Actually, I'm going change that. Redirect to Nintendo. I think there is room for a Nintendo.com or Nintendo of America article that can hold this information (those both currently redirect to Nintendo). --- RockMFR 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be deleted because it is a blatant attempt at advertising. If smaller boards can't advertise, neither should NSider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.184.141.253 (talk • contribs).

This isn't advertising, it's an article about a real forum. If it said "Please join" or anything like that, then it would be advertising. Joiz ^A. Shmo 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently created an article about my personal forum. Nowhere in the article did it say 'Please join' but it was deleted for advertising. I don't see how that example differs from NSider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Divine Corsair (talk • contribs).

Because it was your PERSONAL forum. I would be surprised if you got half as many hits in a week as NSider gets in a day. Also, by making an article about your own forum, you were, in fact, advertising. Joiz ^A. Shmo 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are now saying that articles should be deleted or kept on basis of hits, there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that should go right now, such as the article on The List of UN resolutions concerning Israel. Now I'm sure that gets a lot of hits. Or how about The Original Soul Seekers? Many hits per day, right? Otherwise, according to you, they shouldn't be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Divine Corsair (talk • contribs).

Comment, Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web). Long story short, Official websites that feature verifiable and substantial information are allowed on Wikipedia as long as they meet Wikipedia's policies towards WP:Attribution to WP:reliable sources. This article was not nominated for deletion because it seems like an advertisement, but rather because it fails to meet the aforementioned policies -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (web) - There's not much, if anything, that can be merged at this point. The reason why proper sources haven't been found is that there probably aren't any, at least that would support the article's content in its current state. I'm trying to think of an appropriate concept to describe my concern, without rehashing the same "what is notability" debate that often takes place with "keepers", and the closest analog I can think of at the moment is the "in-universe" perspective for writing about fiction. This isn't exactly fiction, but the article does cater to a narrow "inside" viewpoint, and it seems there is nothing available to balance it. The fact is that this is probably a topic that can't be covered properly by Wikipedia. It best belongs in some other gaming wiki. Dancter 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Where does wikipedia draw the line between what is advertising and what is not? Just because this forum has more recognition than some forum a kid can create because he was bored, doesn't make it any more fair that they can't have a wiki and NSider can. I say delete it. Or at least merge it with the Nintendo wiki. Last Living Soul 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:Notability (web). That is where the line is drawn. --SubSeven 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If you trimmed all the useless stuff out of this article there would pretty much be nothing left. Merging it into the Nintendo article is no good either because, as someone else has already stated, it would be entirely out of place there. NuncAutNunquam ^Talk 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be out of place based on the current article's structure, but that doesn't mean a place cannot be created. The main Nintendo article mentions little to nothing about Nintendo's marketing of its products, so why not simply create a section on marketing (or, an entirely different article?) Obviously the entire creation section shouldn't be merged, but there's no denying that an online community that dates back 10 years (if you count Loudhouse and HTS, Nsider's forerunners) has some significance and should not be ignored. -PsychoYoshi 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The grand war

This is a neologism and a dictionary definition. Furthermore, it defines a satirical term as though it were meant to be taken literally. Wikipedia is not for things made up on TV one day. Deranged bulbasaur 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think we should consider making a speedy deletion criteria: Colbertcruft. eaolson 15:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak abstain. Leaning toward very week delete. Stephen Colbert does, in fact, suck. Lulzatron 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WINAD and WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
'Delete. Neologism.--ZayZayEM 03:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Foster (nonduality)

Disputed Prod, other articles on similar non-notable people were deleted via Prod, Tony Parsons (nonduality) and Nathan Gill. EnsRedShirt 08:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - nothing to indicate notability. sources all seem to be self serving and therefore unreliable. Montco 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: no assertion of notability, fails WP:ATT. RGTraynor 20:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 21:16, 12 March 2007 (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Betts

Just being a bank robber hardly makes this person "notable" at all - in fact, I have yet to find any substantial reliable sources documenting this person's case (and her name gives only a few hundred Google hits) TML 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per WP:BLP, WP:ATT and WP:N and per: if you can't show a spree like Bonnie and Clyde you are just a criminal... not notable Alf^Photoman 17:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NOTE and reads like a wanted poster.-- – Dakota 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ATT. No reason given why this bank robber is any more notorious than any other bank robber. --Charlene 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The woman was on America's Most Wanted and Indianapolis police were breaking state records trying to catch her. I've added the following references and expanded the article:
- ""America's Most Wanted" leads to arrest of Missouri woman", St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2004-06-06. Retrieved on 2007-03-11.
- "'Most Wanted' show leads police to Sikeston woman", Columbia Daily Tribune, 2004-06-03. Retrieved on 2007-03-11.
- "Unknown Indy Female Bank Robber", America's Most Wanted, 2004-05-22. Retrieved on 2007-03-11.
- "Female Robbed a Bank, Was Caught On Tape", America's Most Wanted, 2004-06-19. Retrieved on 2007-03-11.
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 09:21Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete . many many criminals are arrested and many are shown on news shows. For Naomi there are no recent news articles .. the world has stopped caring and so should we. per WP:NOT as an indicriminate piece of information - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:ATT and BIO. - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. 15 minutes of fame (or infamy) does not make someone notable. At most and only if relevant, I could see the AP article being linked to from the America's Most Wanted article talking about the show leading to arrests. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete 15 minutes of fame per above. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is now well referenced and meets the minimal notability guidelines. Speculating on its use to future readers is unnecessary crystal balling. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Meets the standard requirements, and that's all thats necessary. Further, I think America's 10 most wanted might be considered ipso facto notable. That's the purpose of the show.DGG 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Is "notorious" the same as "notable"? :) Just kidding. I agree. The article now has multiple reliable secondary sources. It should be kept. —Carolfrog 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep the existence of sources is our best yardstick for notability. — brighterorange (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep On America's Most Wanted makes him notable--Sefringle 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - There are many people who have been captured directly as a result of AMW that do not have Wikipedia articles. In fact, many of them do not even have news articles about their captures in major news sources. In addition, it appears that the press has all but stopped following her immediately after her 2004 capture, so how many people will remember this 5-10 years from now? TML 04:44, 14 March 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Gemin

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:71.210.212.187, who stated that Gemin has asked him/her to delete it for personal reasons. The article survived a previous AfD. Spacepotato 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article does not, I feel, satisfy WP:PROF. But in any case, if the subject of the article has requested its deletion, I feel that we should respect her wishes. There is clearly no issue of public safety or public awareness which demands its retention.--Anthony.bradbury 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ in view of the heated debate re. Daniel Brandt I feel that we should remain consequent for at least a week. So reasons for deletion are failing WP:A WP:N and/or WP:V. If the nominator could show us where this article fails any of the above I'll happily go along, if not I'll have to go for a Speedy Keep Alf^Photoman 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Once a writer is interviewed by a major regional newspaper and by national radio, they become a public figure. I added some references. Besides, there doesn't seem to be anything derogatory in the article. --Eastmain 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Aside from possible issues of being a public figure, there is no actual proof that Ms. Gemin has asked the article to be removed, but only a claim from a user. -- Black Falcon 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete She is not enough of a public figure for us to keep the article against her wishes, per BLP. DGG 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Black Falcon, and that it seems to pass WP:ATT.—Carolfrog 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:ATT, WP:BIO. That aside, I take "the subject asked for this to be deleted" with a heavy dose of salt. Who says, with what proof? RGTraynor 20:26, 12 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University College London Conservative Society

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Although some past members of the society are clearly notable, they were not notable when they were members. Even had they been notability might have been contentious, but as it is there is no notability associated with the society. Delete, therefore.--Anthony.bradbury 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete As suggested, the student society has no special claim to notability at this time... - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Each of your statements is wrong:

1) Every sentence in the article has a reference. Thus, it is not "totally unsourced", but totally sourced.

2) You have cited no precedent. There are precedents to support keeping the article at in the form of Cambridge Universities Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats. Note that these include university political societies.Hence, to claim that there is precedent is laughable.

3) Your cookie-cutter, cut+paste assertion that the claim to notability is the fame of its alumni is false. The 'Alumni' section comes at the end of the article. The actual claim to notability is mainfold:

3a) The society is the oldest and largest (by current student members) student Conservative society in the country.

3b) The society is not a chapter of the Conservative Party, but an independent organisation unaffiliated to the party. The relevant chapter of the Conservative Party is the Holborn and St Pancras Conservative Future.

3c) The society is one of the largest student societies, of any sort, in London. Look at Cat:British student societies and tell me that there's any sort of policy or precedent.

3d) The society has a seat on the National Convention of the Conservative Party. It is, therefore, important by this ex officio status afforded to its President.

3e) The society has received a lot of attention in the blogosphere and the mainstream media. Most recently, Hugo Rifkind wrote a mini-article on the society in his column in the Times on 2nd March 2007.

3f) The society hosts innumerable Members of Parliament, Lords, and the Shadow Cabinet. In the last two weeks alone, the society has hosted Lord Strathclyde (27/2), John Whittingdale (2/3), and Richard Ottaway (6/3).

Given the above, I suggest that you, and the two people that have been misguided by your comment, reconsider your position. Bastin 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

- per your (3c), refer WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and yes, there are articles in that category that should be deleted as well. Please feel free to PROD them. Per (3e), if there is suitable external sourcing available then add it, instead of complaining about frivolous PRODs - this one was perfectly justified at this point. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - [Apologies for not replying sooner] It's not a matter of citing articles that merely exist, but articles that have survived AfD. Just in the British societies, the list includes Sheffield University Theatre Company, Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, Cambridge University Light Entertainment Society, Cambridge Universities Labour Club, Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats, Glasgow University Student Television, York Student Television, Oxford Law Society, Out of the Blue (Oxford University), Piers Gaveston Society, and Oxford University Cave Club. Note that these include university political societies. I asked for the precedent that was claimed when it was listed. This has not been provided. The above ought to serve as precedent to the contrary, even ignoring the above facts that make the UCL Conservative Society one of the most notable student societies (of any sort) in the UK. Bastin 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Thank you for bringing these to our attention; I'm sure the AfDs will be flying fast and furiously. RGTraynor 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Every source provided appears to be written by the organisation in question. Sources from outside the organisation are needed most. -- saberwyn 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the solution is to make that point on the talk page, use {{Fact}} and {{Notability}}, and to allow a short period in which the editors can then diversify the sources. The solution is NOT to inappropriately PROD the article, and immediately AfD it when that PROD is objected to. I have begun the process of introducing other sources, and intend to make at least half of the sources published by other individuals or organisations in the next couple of days. Bastin 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete- not notable Astrotrain 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Astrotrain. You can't claim an article is "totally sourced" when all the references are from the organisation in question. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Orig., author is right. Major institution in contemporary and 20th c UK politics. The alumni make it N. Just undocumented, not undocumentable. Rather odd argument above: "though some past members of the society are clearly notable, they were not notable when they were members" This being a student society, that is by definition impossible--perhaps set as a deliberately absurd criterion. The reason schools, college, societies, are notable is because of their alumni--everything they might do in the organization would be irrelevant if there hadn't been alums whose real-life work made it worth thinking about in the first place--otherwise they would have been failures altogether.

There are still a few more days, and the supporters better get the refs in--to save WP from the embarrassment of having deleted these 3 articles. DGG 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep There are many articles on left wing political associations on wikipedia. If you delete one article on political associations, then you have to delete all; and no one will want that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimdawg (talk • contribs).
Delete no reliable sources, all are from subject of article. Derex 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, NN, fails WP:ATT. Amidst the indignation, I'm waiting for some sourcing which indicates that this organization is notable as a society, not that a bunch of its alums have made good (something which could be said of a great many otherwise non-notable college societies). Great, so they get to send a delegate to Tory national conventions. No doubt the St-Brixley-In-The-Moor Conservative Party caucus does too, but we don't have articles on similar local Tory councils. RGTraynor 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion or evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 21:54, 12 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King's College London Conservative Society

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before. Nuttah68 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Student societies are intrinsically non-notable, unless they possess some unique claim to fame. This one makes no such claim. Fails WP:NN, even though as a student I was a member.--Anthony.bradbury 13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete As suggested, the student society has no special claim to notability at this time... - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above. Nothing in the articles to assert their importance over any other student society. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete every college has those sorts of political societies, we can't have articles on all of them, only those with major media coverage. Wooyi 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, certainly no sources provided. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Orig., author is right. Major institution in contemporary and 20th c UK politics. The alumni make it N. Just undocumented, not undocumentable.DGG 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment On that basis practically any University political society anywhere would be eligible because they're almost certain to have at least one alumnus who is notable. Surely it's the alumni who are notable, not the society by association? (There are exceptions to this for societies who are notable in their own right, obviously).EliminatorJR ^Talk 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more than one is necessary, and there are. Perhaps I should clarify it as alums relevant to the society or organization. This is a political asociation, and the alums are the ones N as conservative politicians. DGG 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The claim to notability is not solely alumni, as clearly indicated by the positioning of the alumni list at the bottom of the page (and the fact that I've threatened to delete that section for being unsourced; unlike the rest of the article, which is entirely sourced). Instead, its claim to notability is being the second-largest Conservative society in London and one of the largest societies at KCL, and hosting events with innumerable high-profile politicians (two weeks ago, Lord King; tomorrow night, Nicholas Soames; next week, Francis Maude). There is very good precedent for keeping the article, in the form of Cambridge Universities Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats. I will try to diversify the sources, but the lack of diverse sources is clearly not the problem, as proven by the precedent of the Cambridge societies. Bastin 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the problem is diversification of sources, which needs improving. Note though, that there is little rule of precedence on Wikipedia per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; and if the Cambridge Society articles don't measure up, they should go as well. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - This isn't WAX, because those articles have survived AFDs. The argument against using precedence (outlined in WAX) is two-fold, but neither of them applies in this case. First, it suggests that the other article may not have been put forward for nomination; this is not the case, as both of those articles have been nominated and found to be notable. Second, it suggests that there may not be direct parallels across which to apply the precedent; this is not the case, as they are all large British university societies affiliated to major political parties. Since neither rationale applies, it is sensible to take into consideration precedent, which is clearly in favour of keeping the article.Bastin 14:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Nevertheless, it still needs good secondary sources, which still haven't been provided. This society isn't on the same level as the Oxford University one. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This article may not have excellent secondary citations but it is a work in progress and as the eociety grows then the number and breadth of these will grow. The President-elect for 2007/08 is already making plans to investigate the history of the society which is suspected to be at least of equal age as UCLCS if not older. This article should be allowed to remain so that further work may be done to improve the flaws which have been recognised above. Cm kcl

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford University Conservative Association

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member and the has been some internal controversy. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete A society is not of itself famous just because it has had members in the past who are now notable. Named past members - Thatcher, Heath, Ress-Mogg etc - were not themselves notable at the time of their membership. If a currently notable leading politician were a current member then notability might be argued (although even then it would not necessarily be agreed) but this is not the case. Non-notable, therefore.--Anthony.bradbury 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete As suggested, the student society has no special claim to notability at this time... - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above. Nothing in the article to assert their importance over any other student society. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Many student societies are certainly non-notable, but this one probably is. It has an 80-year history and is the student branch of a leading political party in one of the leading universities, from which a great many leading politicins have come. I note there are similar deletion requests for the equivalents in two other universities. I have not yet considered these. Peterkingiron 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article claims "OUCA's reputation has been tarnished in recent years by a number of controversies, which have attracted press coverage both within Oxford University and in some cases in the national press". In that case, it shouldn't be difficult to show notability, should it? EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Major association in current and historical UK politics. With respect to historical notability, ck lede paragraph for list of members. Contrary to some of the above comments, once notable, always notable or else we are not building a general encyclopedia. It should not be necessary to defend this. None of the Kings of France or Roman Emperors are notable currently either. ( For the present day, the current figures listed above are N too. Really N members or alumni are enough to make a school notable, or even a club. Obviously no currently active politician is currently a member, it's a student society--though even here there have been some who were already N as members, including Thatcher and Disraeli.) It could probably be argued that this is historically more important than the two London Univ. ones, so each should be considered on its own merit. I added a book ref, and a journal article about its past notability. DGG 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per DGG.—Carolfrog 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep There are many articles on left wing political associations on wikipedia. If you delete one article on political associations, then you have to delete all; and no one will want that.
- WP:AGF, please. EliminatorJR ^Talk 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Association has long been considered a recruiting ground for future senior Tories. Whilst the internal controversies of a student political organisation are not inherently notable, they are when they affect a local election. New Progressive 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per DGG above MikeMorley 10:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per DGG, though article does need improved focus on history of the society rather than current status --Martin Wisse 10:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There is nothing notable here. Anything notable that its former members have done needs to go in their respective articles. The rest of this is just self-referential citations about infighting and other non-notable events. --Mus Musculus 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Much of the rubbish about infighting and recent scandals ought to be deleted, and much of it needs citation, but OUCA is almost certainly the most notable non-debating student society in the UK, and therefore, clearly deserves an article. Strong precedents are set by the keep votes in AfD for Cambridge Universities Labour Club, Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats, Oxford Law Society, Out of the Blue (Oxford University), Piers Gaveston Society, and Oxford University Cave Club (and weaker precedents in the form of Sheffield University Theatre Company, Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, Cambridge University Light Entertainment Society, Cambridge Universities Labour Club, Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats, Glasgow University Student Television, and York Student Television). Surely, if the Oxford caving and law societies deserve to stay, the OUCA does! Bastin 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for pointing that one out - yes, OUCA probably does deserve to stay, but that caving club doesn't! EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Wikipedia shouldn't be limited only to major societies, and since OUCA has had a demonstrable importance in recruiting senior past and present national figures, it should stay. Hackloon 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph palazzo

This author is not notable. A google search returns comparatively few hits, and his books are published by "1st Books" which is known to be a vanity publisher. There is no reference made to coverage by third party, reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 12:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Notability artificially engendered by self-publicity and vanity publication does not satisfy WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 12:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:A, completely unsourced therefore unattributable Alf^Photoman 15:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity press author, no reviews published in independent media, non-notable. --Mus Musculus 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabiat

Non-notable street. Nothing much from Google. Anas ^Talk? 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete As it stands does not satisfy, or even attempt to satisfy WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not even a claim of notability, no attribution, and per Wikipedia:Places of local interest, as it is unlikly there can ever be enough attributable material about the street to write a full and comprehensive article.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nothing notable mentioned nor evident. --Mus Musculus 04:28, 14 March 2007 (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. KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Michael Jenkins

Article is unsourced, full of random thoughts like "he works for Kroll", and is apparently just a clever ad for his book. Nardman1 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:A unless references are shown by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A resumé. May be notable if he has worked with so many government agencies, but there should be sources and maybe a little more detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parsleyjones (talk • contribs).
Keep - Subject of the article seems notable enough, having worked in government, called to testify before Congress, been a featured expert for Frontline, CNN and NPR, and been the focus of articles such as in Omni. The problems with the article aren't grave enough to necessitate deletion. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Despite the article's fantastic tone, there is nothing about him that meets notability standards in WP:BIO. There is a grand total of ONE news article anywhere that mentions his name, and it is to quote him about something. The article is not about him. --Mus Musculus 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Huh? One news articles that mentions him? I think either your search engine is busted or you're mistyping the search. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is one of the biggest terrorism pundits in the media. If you don't recognize the name, it's likely because his middle name is rarely used - the article should probably be moved. However, if you use the terms ["brian jenkins" terrorism], you will see that he gets tens of thousands of Ghits[39], he's quoted in a half-dozen current articles on Gnews[40], and he's got several hundred hits in Google News Archive[41]. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep This dude is quoted everywhere - NPR[42], CNN[43], etc.; he also spoke to the 9-11 Commission hearings[44]. He seems to be widely recognized as a foremost authority on terrorism.Carlaclaws 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. In addition to everything mentioned above, here are four interviews with Paula Zahn of CNN. I am inclined to think that this was simply a case of mistaken identity (i.e., searching for "Brian Michael Jenkins" instead of just "Brian Jenkins" or "Brian Jenkins" +terrorism. -- Black Falcon 02:29, 17 March 2007 (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 re-redirect, nothing really to merge. - Daniel Bryant 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getpid

Non-notability. Wikipedia is not a Unix or Linux manual. Freely-licensed Linux manual pages for such topics as this already exist, and can be contributed to, so there is no point in moving the article to Wikibooks either. greenrd 13:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article used to redirect to Process identifier. Clearly, discussion of getpid() belongs there. Administrator intervention is not required for article merger. Uncle G 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Process identifier per Uncle G. There is no article content or context here. --Mus Musculus 04:58, 14 March 2007 (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 12:47Z

[edit] Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1

This article, and the other articles created for individual chapters of the book, contain cut-and-pasted translations of the chapters of Jerome's books, not articles about them. The main article, De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), has ample space for anything that needs to be said about Jerome's book, and it duly links to the external website where the entire translation can be read, sans typos even. Any content could also be considered for the Wikipedia articles on the various persons covered, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing that would pass muster for any articles actually monitored by Wikipedia editors. Note that the editor admits that he's adding these biographies from Jerome because "each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close)." Original research theories about "very special meanings," and the public-domain sources a user wants to offer the public in support of his original theories, should be offered on his own website, not in the Wikipedia article space. No idea what original theories are at stake for the user exactly, but it seems to involve decoding Jerome's text with the "Petrarch Code"; known agendas include the claim that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century (see further User:Doug Coldwell/Revealing the Code for the claimed codes hiding in the letters of words in English translations of Petrarch, etc.). Wareh 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are equally superflous and unencyclopedic cut-and-paste jobs from the online translation of Jerome's DVI: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wareh (talk • contribs).

   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 9 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 11 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 12 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 13 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 14 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 15 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 16 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 17 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 18 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 19 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 20 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 21 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 22 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 23 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 24 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 25 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 26 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 27 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 28 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 29 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 30 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 31 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 32 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 33 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 34 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 35 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 36 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 37 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 38 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 39 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 40 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 41 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 42 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 43 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 44 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 45 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 46 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 47 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 48 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 49 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 50 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 51 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 52 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 53 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 54 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 55 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 56 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 57 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 58 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 59 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 60 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 61 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   :Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 62 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete my god delete... quick kill it (per WP:NOT). Nardman1 13:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT or at least merge to De viris ilustribus in so far as salvageable Alf^Photoman 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect if it cannot be re-written to meet our standards. But see my discussion with the author -- he was unaware of the wikipedia conventions when he began this exercise. Deb 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per what Wikipedia is not; possibly redirect to De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)? Kyra_~(talk) 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the chapters in Jerome's De viris illustribus are about specific people in Christian history. Information from Jerome's biographies belong in their biographies, not in individual articles about chapters of his book. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. The material is so undigested that there seems to be nothing ready for incorporation in other articles. I don't think the "Chapter X" article names should be kept, even as redirects, since once this is cleaned up nothing will link to them, or would (and because it's hard to know whether to send them backwards to the book article or forwards to the articles on the biography subjects; surely "Jerome says of Polycarp in his De Viris Illustribus..." will be more appropriate than keeping these as usable redirects; I'll clean up the links if needed). Wareh 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The parent article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) is also thoroughly unsatisfactory, in that it is cluttered up with links to the above series of articles, which should be trimmed from it. Wiki is not the place for reproducing texts; furthermore, are the translations not still in copyright? Peterkingiron 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per what Wikipedia is not; dubious agenda regarding authorship of the NT now evident.Brian0324 15:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Transwikify: Move these articles to WikiSource. --Kevinkor2 06:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In my Defense, here are my counter-points:

1. Since the point is that these links to these particular Chapters (i.e. Simon Peter) are basically a "cut and Past" or a "dumping" of text then it shouldn't be there. Apparently then the proper procedure is that a link should be provided to a website that has the English translation of this text. Sounds like the same thing to me. Apparently it is proper to link to the outside world to the text, however it is not proper to link to a Wikipedia English translation that is similar text. That doesn't seem to make sense. If one is allowed, then why isn't the other allowed, which is basically the same thing? Basically the ONLY difference is that one is an "External Link" while the other is an "Internal Link" to basically the same translation.
2. If there is some sort of "original research" in my English translations of these Chapters (which is supposedly just a "cut & paste" and just a "dumping" of text); then wouldn't a reference to a website that has an English translation of basically the same thing be then "original research" material - since it is basically the same translation off the Latin of Jerome's authors that he wrote up as short biographies? How is it then that it is implied that mine is "original research" while basically the same text when linked "externally" is NOT?
3. The wording in the beginning of my article describing De Viris Illustribus and on top in small print on each of these Chapters was taken from the last item in the article on Jerome of "Historical writings". This wording and information has been in Jerome's article since March of 2002 (5 years) and has been allowed with no objection. I am just using the same wording and information. There is nothing "mysterious" here and it is not "original research". I am just working from another Wikipedia article (which is something that is allowed)= Jerome.
4. This article of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) is almost identical in wording, format, style, and general concept to De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) that I wrote up some time ago, that has never had any objections to it. It has been edited by some other editors (very familiar with the subject) and basically all they edited was of minor edits (i.e. change of a category, spelling, typo's, minor word additions). There is nothing of "original research" here nor is there anything that is a "mystery". Simply following what has been previously allowed in other articles that have been around for a long time, even to the point of making a list of biographies. Another example of that is Giovanni Boccaccio's biographies On Famous Women which happens to link to approximately 30 - 40 articles that are "stubs" that have no references or sources even where the material came from. That article itself doesn't even have a reference or source; but has been around for years. Where did that list of "Famous Women" come from? Is it a list that someone just made up? What is its accuracy? Can anyone check to be sure this is the true list of "famous women"? No! It is just a list of names someone made up, however it is allowed. Why? The quality of my articles are far better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doug Coldwell (talk • contribs).

Comment. Both De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) and On Famous Women link to biographical articles that do not consist of primary texts, but are in the form of encyclopedia articles, so that I don't see that they are questionable by the same criteria that have been applied here. I'm not sure whether I know how to help resolve the confusion between an encyclopedia and a primary source, except to say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that primary sources are not encyclopedic content, so that, yes, there are very different standards for articles and for linkable primary texts. The translation of Jerome's book is probably public domain but is not accompanied by any bibliographic information, so someone would have to find the same translation in a library (or get better information from newadvent.org) to confirm the text's copyright status, if it is to be brought to Wikisource (not Wikipedia). And a point of clarification: I am not calling WP:OR on anything, although I have pointed out that the article author's original research seems be driving the selection of content that goes beyond the normal bounds for other reasons. Wareh 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the key words here are "primary texts" verses just plain "biographical". Didn't realize there was a difference and that they should be handled different, however technically apparently there is. I have therefore taken out the links to the biographies that I did and put it back to just a list of the names (with no links). After you confirm what you need to confirm, then perhaps you will put Jerome's individual biographies on Wikipedia source (from whichever translation you think is appropriate). Meanwhile, did you look into the Reference source On Famous Women. There doesn't seem to be one, should there be? Also these link to approximately 30 - 40 "stubs" that do not have references or sources of any types (apparently this way for up to 5 years now for many of them). The quality of these "stubs" that are years old are very poor. The quality of my articles are of a very high standard. Now of course I am biased, however you might want to check them out. They are all listed on my User Page under "Articles I started". Now this article of "De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)" is just like De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) which has never had any objections from the onstart. This should now pass as an acceptable quality Wikipedia article.--Doug ^talk 19:07, 12 March 2007 (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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isidro Mosquea

Non notable boxer merely participating in events does not warrant its own article PrincessBrat 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I may be wrong, but he did participate in the Olympics and win a silver medal in the Pan-American Games. Besides, he does have 334 ghits.
Keep, first of all where did nominator get the idea that Olympians don't warrant articles? Second, he is not a mere participator but also a regional medalist. Punkmorten 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Punkmorten - fchd 06:39, 13 March 2007 (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. Bucketsofg 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Józef Kloze

Being the father of a current footballer does not warrant an article. non notable player. Probably more suitable for wikibios where non notable people can be listed if this is at all necessary PrincessBrat 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Being a professional footballer who played for a professional football club IS notable. MaxSem 15:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why has this article not been suitbly expanded with info? Also the link you gave for AJ Auxerre does not even mention him in the notable players list! --PrincessBrat 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be in some kind of "best sportsmen ever" list to be notable. WP:BIO clearly states:

Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis. And that's enough for inclusion. MaxSem 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO also says that it is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits. Also note The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.

There is very little interest in this article, as can be seen from the amount of info on it. Why should there be articles in this site that are nothign more than one liners?
Also you ignored my point about the club you linked in your first reply not having this player mentioned once in it.
A google search on this player doesnt throw much up either.
Also can you tell me what would you learn from reading the article currently up for deletion - which is what an encyclopedia is all about? --PrincessBrat 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1) If an article is short - it should be expanded, not deleted. 2) Why article on club must be turned into list of its notable players? 3) Amount of Google hits IS NOT indicator of notabilty. 4) You shouldn't think that only people worth including are G8 leaders and superstars who get $20M for film/sports season. MaxSem 13:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

the fourth point you fail to argue well, what eduaction do we get from this article? Nothing at all! --PrincessBrat 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - You delete this and you have to delete three quarters of the football biography pages on wikipedia.--Hack 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ALLORNOTHING on why this is not a valid argument. meshach 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep' -- that is an essay, the opinion of its author. In reality, the precedent of what WP does contain is relevant--it represents the prior decisions of a general topic and prevents us from erratic inclusion. WP:BIo gives the standard that has been and remains accepted for athletes. We can of course change the standard, and that can be argued there. DGG 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This guy has played professional football at elite level in two countries - how is that not notable? It is not as if we are dealing with someone who was a squad player. The fact that it is a short article does not reflect a lack of notability.--Hack 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Played top-flight football in two countries, therefore clearly notable. Suggestion that it should be deleted because he isn't highlighted on the Auxerre article as one of their all-time greats is clearly nonsense. ChrisTheDude 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep playing for AJ Auxerre makes him notable in my book. Article needs references and expansion but these are not grounds for deletion. Qwghlm 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per ChrisTheDude HornetMike 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep if the part about AJ Auxerre is true. Article should be sourced. Punkmorten 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've sourced that bit for starters...... ChrisTheDude 15:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What seems to be missing on all this is your all saying this person is notable, then why is the article so short. Surely there should be info to populate this article with if he is so brilliant? All your arguements to keep seem to be flying against the fact that, the article is nothign more than one short line. If he played top flight football in two countries why isnt this stated? If someone was gonna improve it it wudnt get nominated fo rdeletion would it? --PrincessBrat 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right in the article: "Kloze played professionally for AJ Auxerre [1] in France and Odra Opole in Poland" that is son is N in the same sport is interesting but not relevant for notability. He qualifies in his own right (I assume from the discussion that the teams mentioned qualify--I admit i do not know this myself--if they dont, then he is not notable).DGG 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that nobody has yet seen fit to expand an article on a notable person is not a reason to delete their article.... ChrisTheDude 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep given that this is a player who meets WP:BIO - he has had a notable career and an article carrying details of that career is useful, even if at present this is only a stub. Robotforaday 12:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per everyone else. He is certainly a noteable footballer according to that briefest of biographies. All stubs need expanding. Generally I find it easier to do that than create an AfD. aLii 12:27, 14 March 2007 (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 for the moment per nominator's implied withdrawal. Yuser31415 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Magsamen

This is hagiography. The notability is meager, and no references are provided for the claim of being "award-winning." Deranged bulbasaur 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Her book was reviewed in the Washington Post here. A Google search reveals many instances where she is called "award-winning". She was "chosen from thousands of artists to create Saks Fifth Avenue's Christmas book, ... and was selected to create the theme for their 2003 holiday events across the country. Saks' flagship windows were the second most visited tourist site in Manhattan during the holidays" Link. - PoliticalJunkie 14:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article, as it stands, is complete fluff. I think you'd do just as well to start over. Deranged bulbasaur 15:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, the language is rather fluffy (e.g. "vibrant and expressive works", "express ourselves in our own authentic and unique ways"). Still, if someone incorporates the links from above and rewrites the entire article before the end of this discussion, the article is worthy. - PoliticalJunkie 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Her cloth book series from LB Kids, an imprint of Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, debuted in September with two books, Baby Love and My Blanket, which were awarded the Platinum Book Award, the highest honor bestowed by The Oppenheim Toy Portfolio. My Blanket won a Gold Award in the book category of the 2006 National Parenting Publications Awards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markart55 (talk • contribs).

Delete. As it is this article is meaningless. If someone can and wants to fix it, go ahead.--Parsleyjones 17:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's a perfectly valid entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markart55 (talk • contribs).
Keep and copyedit, wikify, add refs, etc. I'm convinced there is something salvageable here. I will work on it tomorrow. --Mus Musculus 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note, I have rewritten the article and provided citations. --Mus Musculus 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The revisions look good. - PoliticalJunkie 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per PoliticalJunkie. --EarthPerson 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Use of the term "hagiography" in the nomination seems a bit rude. --EarthPerson 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why. It's bandied about rather freely here, and some works (e.g. the lives of the saints) are commonly described as hagiography with no depricatory intention. As far as I know, the literal meaning is "writings about greatness" or something similar, which doesn't seem very condemnatory. In any case, I'm leaning toward thinking the present version of the article is worth keeping. I might've withdrawn my nomination if it were a younger AfD, but since it's about to run its course anyway, I'll let the closing admin have his say. Congratulations to User:Mus Musculus for turning the article into something worthwhile. Deranged bulbasaur 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think my prior comments or the other delete voters have much bearing considering that it's almost an entirely new article. Deranged bulbasaur 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronan Handcock

I think the consensus is that being a failed game show contestant is not sufficient for notability. Merely being the heir to a barony, without otherwise doing anything remarkable, is not notable either. Deranged bulbasaur 14:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, only 73 Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 15:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. This is entirely non-notable, this AfD does not even need to exist. It should be {{db-bio}}. --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also, if you know its consensus, you should use CSD or {{prod}}. AfD is only for controversial debates. Too many people nom for AfD when it could be deleted elsewise. AfD is only for controversy, or if {{prod}} is contested.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Prod is a waste of time on very new articles, because they're still getting attention and will almost inevitably be de-prodded. I didn't use speedy deletion here because it has generated local press, and local interest topics are a contentious issue. Also, there's no consensus on whether people with hereditary titles have any sort of inherent notability. In any case, I don't know why you're upbraiding me about it when you could just mark the article for speedy deletion if you think it fits the criteria and be done with it. There's no reason that this AfD should prevent you from doing that. Deranged bulbasaur 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I did mark it for speedy under {{db-bio}}, but someone removed it one the grounds that the AfD discussion was already in place.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Being the heir or child of someone notable does not mean one automatically piggybacks onto that notability. Separately, the claims of x-factor treatment are not enough to meet WP:BIO. I disagree that this is uncontroversial enough for prod and it certainly isn't a speedy candidate; the claim of notability is evident with sources. That having been said, it is a myth that prodding new articles is fruitless. On the contrary I almost exclusively prod new articles when I use it and am often successful.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:40, 11 March 2007 (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. Bucketsofg 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cheesecake Factory locations

I'm AFD'ing this rather than prod'ing it because I'm waffling a bit on this article, and thought it could use some discussion. I'm uncomfortable with this article because it smacks of advertising. Is a list of restaurant locations really encyclopedic? I can't really think of much use for this page. There's not enough detail to give directions to a particular restaurant, so it's just a list of cities that have a Cheesecake Factory. Heaven forbid someone would start a List of Mcdonald's article. I'm not aware of any paper encyclopedia (and yes, WP is not paper) that would have such a list. It seems to me the encyclopedic thing to do would be to say on the Cheesecake Factory page that there are X number of restaurants, and if anyone wants the complete list, they can go to the main corporate site. eaolson 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LIST Alf^Photoman 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete classic Wikipedia is not a directory. Noroton 17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. Wareh 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; violates WP:NOT. And no, this should not be merged with Cheesecake Factory either. If someone wants to know the locations, they can visit their site. --Mhking 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Masterpedia 18:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree, this is better done via the corporate website. Or just look for the large crowds of people waiting to get in. --Brianyoumans 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete This belongs to the corporate website, not WP. Betnap 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. —dima/s-ko/ 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. Jumping on the bandwagon. WLGades 10:31, 14 March 2007 (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. Bucketsofg 19:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Joseph Phillips

I can't find an ISBN for any book by this author. I suspect he is someone who has self-published or had stories printed in minor pulp magazines; it seems to me he fails WP:NOTE Stephen Burnett 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete No relevant Google hits for the author [45], and none at Worldcat for a few of the 10 novels he has purportedly written (but never states are published) that I checked (Robot World=0[46]; Terminal Writer=0[47]) and his geocities page listed in the article is just as vague in asserting authorship but not listing anything which substantiates actual publication. Thus, nothing here showing he meets WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Someone's resume.--Parsleyjones 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unpublished, hence unnotable, author. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as the article notes: He continues to submit work, looking for that big break. Good luck, Mr. Phillips but until that big break comes, this is non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a vanity page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as vanity, though how he thought he was gratifying it by listing imaginary books I dod not understand. DGG 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pasion Mura

Non-notable. There are no ghits for Pasion Mura, nor his works. I initially marked it for speedy deletion, but the author contested the deletion. Then, the only defense he provided was "This page is for information. I created it to increase the wikipedia resources." Furthermore, he did not respond to my requests to verify his claims on Pasion Mura's fame. Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. - PoliticalJunkie 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The otherwise relatively complete cast listings on IMDB showed nobody by that name. --Pekaje 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, independent sources neither present nor found. --Tikiwont 15:24, 12 March 2007 (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 Deranged bulbasaur 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Fane

The article is about a musician with one album published by a label of his own creation. There's no indication of notability beyond that. Deranged bulbasaur 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Julian Fane has recently (in February) released another album which I aim to add info about as well. Both albums have been reviewed at allmusic.com which gets linked to by many album entries. Two record reviews except the short reviews at allmusic.com has been located: one in English [48] and one in Danish [49]. I do indeed fail to see why Julian Fane has any less notability than Jega with whom he is sharing record label (Planet Mu). Could you please elaborate on why this is not a proper indication of notability? Sebras 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

From what you say, it seems I misunderstood the text of the article. When you called it "Julian's record label" I thought you were implying self-publication and that it was one of the dozens of non-notable band articles that are created every day. Those references, and the article on the label itself, indicate otherwise. Deranged bulbasaur 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squacketball

Non-notability. A Google search returns 3 hits: 2 which are duplicates of the wiki racquetball article which once listed squacketball, and the other to my talk page. "what links here" returns no hits. The originator of the article said that a few people invented this game at his workplace. Also check the history of Racquetball and my talk page. Archer3 15:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not for unnattributable things made up one day while bored at work.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. - PoliticalJunkie 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete until they have a national federation. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT --SubSeven 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, non-attributable. Christopher Jost 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- Slg r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Daily Show correspondent titles

Delete - this is the third AFD for this article. The first closed with a delete but got overturned because people who didn't feel like they got a chance to participate wanted their say, and was kept the second time with no consensus. The previous AFDs are linked on the talk page. This article amounts to "collection of trivial one-liners used once on a popular show." It is not encyclopedic. The topic is covered, including examples, in The Daily Show so there is no need to merge this content anywhere. Otto4711 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleteper nom. Gan fon 17:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft - just an indiscriminate list, and not encyclopaedic. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and I'd like to thank the fans of the Daily Show for hosting the rest of Wikipedia here on their fan site for such a long time. Noroton 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The AfD notice on the article page was linked to the closed 2nd nomination. I have just fixed it to link to this one. -- Hawaiian717 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I had fixed it. Otto4711 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete As much as I love The Daily Show, I've always despised this idiotic "article". As unencyclopedic as can be. -- Kicking222 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, beautiful example of fancruft. Recury 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, per Mr.Z-man, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, per Recury and per sheer common sense. Noroton 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. This belongs on a fansite, not in an encyclopedia. -Big Smooth 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. big fan of the show, but this does not belong on WP. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:41, 14 March 2007 (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 Irishguy [50]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Phillips

This person is non-notable as per WP:NOTE Stephen Burnett 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is a companion unsourced article on an editor's wife to his article on himself, which implies authorship of multiple published books which cannot be found. A Google search of her name and the city and state she is a politician of returns three hits total [51], only one of which appears to be her and is a statistical mention of her vote in an election and nothing else ([52]). Nothing on Google News or book searches. Thus, nothing here meeting the general requirements of WP:BIO, nor its subsection for politicians, and no attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:A Alf^Photoman 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as CSD A7. Precinct delegate is in no way an assertion of notability. (Well, it's a step above block captain.) So tagged. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of concept albums (narrative)

As noted on the talkpage, this list is extremely crufty and on top of that, it's entirely original research. Not a single verifiable source is cited and the prose reads like 5th-rate fansite material. Incomplete and sometimes wholly made-up (the "concept album" category is at best arguable anyway). On top of that, it serves no purpose beyond what a simple wiki category could do. Get rid of it! BotleySmith 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LIST. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; and make category. List is non-notable as an entry in and of itself. --Mhking 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete subjective, no verification. HagenUK 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - There's no way that this can be determined without original research. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and make category titled something like "List of Albums that Might Be Considered Concept Albums", if at all. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as original research with no verifiability.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zsinj^Talk 03:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Inch Nails advertising

2432.mp3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Me, I'm Not (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
1-216-333-1810 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
U.S. Wiretap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The things cited by these articles are mainly web sites where one can download files, or web sites that are clearly themselves parts of the promotional campaign described at Year Zero (album)#Promotion. Reading the sources cited by the latter, I see that we do not have a single reliable source amongst them to confirm such basic facts as the very existence of any of these mysterious USB drives, or the identity of "Elizabeth". The only things cited are pseudonymous postings on web discussion fora that link to other pseudonymous postings on other web discussion fora, in a self-referential nest of fan frenzy. This has all of the trappings of a publicity stunt and is unverifiable from sources that (a) are named and identifiable people (rather than possible pseudonymous astroturfing), (b) are fact checked and peer reviewed, and (c) have reputations to defend at all, let alone reputations for honesty and accuracy. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. There's also strong evidence that this is a hoax. Notice the claims that spectrographs can reveal fingerprints and telephone numbers, and compare them with what spectrograms actually are. Furthermore, several of the articles contain original research into the domain names and telephone numbers, being performed directly by Wikipedia editors firsthand in Wikipedia itself. Uncle G 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE. Spectrograms have been known to contain hidden images, so this is not a hoax. However, these pages have no place on Wikipedia - there is a NIN wiki for them already. BotleySmith 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam. To correct BotleySmith above: it is possible that these are not hoaxes, but almost certainly they are. -- RHaworth 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ATT, this isn't so much hoax as heavily social-engineered marketing. (I can only imagine how this will go over on echoingthesound.) -- Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, a non-notable viral marketing campaign at best. Big WP:OR and WP:RS problems. If reliable sources can be found a paragraph in the advertised album's page would be justified. Weregerbil 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Speedy Delete - totally agree with the contibutors above. HagenUK 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete spam. Nardman1 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Weregerbil. --Metropolitan90 03:00, 12 March 2007 (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 both. Chaser - T 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Philippine radio and television stations

Redundant list. There are existing separate lists of radio and television stations. Danngarcia 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because with the same reason:

Delete per nom. Redundant. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. --Mus Musculus 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. I'd suggest redirecting, but to which one? Besides, it doesn't seem a plausible search term. -- Black Falcon 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X and king

Personal essay; not suitable or notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Mhking 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOT#OR point 3. -- Pious7 18:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete and salt. This is twice deleted content, twice reposted by the same user who has been warned.-- Dakota 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Speedy delete - Dakota has said it all. HagenUK 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as said by Dakota. Pete Shan osky 22:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete and salt, and block user if he tries to repost. JuJube 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, delete as essay, but it warranted looking at-- and being an unreferenced essay or OR are not valid reasons for speedy. Neither is re-creation after a speedy or a prod. just an unsophisticated essay. I think blocking or threatened blocking or salting an over-reaction to the nuisance of this one article. DGG 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and second DGG's comments. G4 is incorrectly applied here, and the editor who is reposting may not understand what's going on. --Mus Musculus 16:38, 14 March 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion victim

This is half dictionary definition, half personal essay. Calliopejen 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; violates WP:NOT --Mhking 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:A Alf^Photoman 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I dont see why this cant be kept, its a commonly used phrase so I dont think violates WP:A. I do think it could do with some re-writing so that it does not read so much like an essay and therefore violating WP:NOT but its easily salvagable. --PrincessBrat 20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep - this is a difficult one. If it gets cleaned up and properly referenced, it might become a worthwhile article. HagenUK 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep A valid subject for an article. It could do with some more alignment with Wiki conventions but it seems to me an intelligently presented base for further edits. --Nonnymouth 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A few minutes' searching does not turn up any good sources, so it is just an essay. Without the essay, you have a non-notable neologism. --Mus Musculus 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. [Author] Shocked by my article's proposed deletion and spurred on by the legitimate criticism, I have added references and sources. --Keygrippa 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I stand corrected--looks good now. Sorry, Keygrippa. Calliopejen 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)*Keep. That's OK Calliopejen, my mum has been very supportive on the phone and has reassured me that it is quite normal to be criticised on Wikipedia. I won't mind if the article is deleted. --Keygrippa 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I think WP:NEO is the appropriate policy and this article seems to meet the reliable source requirement. Seems to meet WP:A now. Although it needs more sourcing and those 4 lines need to be sourced. --Quirex 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- Atlant 00:59, 17 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Institute of Palliative Medicine

Non-notable see google search [53], poorly written, and reads like an add. Masterpedia 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ failing WP:A, probably WP:N Alf^Photoman 18:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Mus Musculus claims he can bring this article up to standards so we should give him an opportunity Alf^Photoman 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. There are quite a few of these institutes all around the world. This article is not stating why this one is special. HagenUK 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Following the clean-up I change my vote to Weak keep. HagenUK 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as last item. If retained it should be renamed to indicate its location, and that it is not the only one in the world.Peterkingiron 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Folowing edit by Mus Musculus, this is possibly now a Weak keep. Nevertheless the article should be moved to Institute of Palliative Medicine, Kozhikode, and needs expansion to indicate more as to what is special about it and hence distinctive. Perhaps a little of its hisotry might be useful. Peterkingiron 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now. I cleaned it up and added a couple references. I get the sense that this is an important organization in India, and the information there, while a stub, is verified. I think it could be expanded usefully. --Mus Musculus 19:30, 14 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychogenetics

mostly OR babble, merge any material supported by RS to Behavioural genetics, else redirect there per Wim Crusio's comment on Talk:Psychogenetics Pete.Hurd 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychogenes Pete.Hurd 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR Alf^Photoman 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Unint 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Very, very weak keep - I cannot make head or tail of what the article says, but it looks like a cut-and-paste from another source. Only the detailed references make it look worth keeping. Really, someone with subject matter knowledge needs to review the article. Also, it desperately needs a clean-up and some high-level contents that a layman can understand. HagenUK 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason you can't make head or tail of the article is that it's WP:Complete bollocks. I'd be intrigued if you turn up a WP:Reliable source in the references to support the central claim that “psycho-genes” contain Subliminal Nuance Data and Conscious Nuance Data―SND and CND. in the same way that our genome is composed of RNA and DNA. Pete.Hurd 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did a quick Google search and the references stacked up in Google Scholar. However, the authors don't all match, which is a bit suspicious. Anyway, the content still does not make any sense to me. I'll stick to my Very, very weak keep but I would support a Delete decision as well. Psychogenetics seem to be a bit of quack psychology, but that does not exclude it from Wikipedia as long as there is a strong Critism section in there. My main bug bear with this article is that it is basically unreadable. HagenUK 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete this article and its companion are 100% grade-A nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- as further proven by the list of references, where the author apparently gathered in any that made use of similar words in the title. Fortunately there is no evidence for popular notice to complicate things. DGG 06:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As suggested on the talk page, the term does appear in a number of psychology papers from the 1960s/70s, but nothing since. The only modern-day reference I could find was to a department at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, which, taken in context, clearly has nothing to do with the ideas presented here. –Unint 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes , the possibility of using this term clearly occurred to a number of people, but it did not become established as a discipline under that name.DGG 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I have little doubt that this is an actual field of study, quackery aside. If nothing reliable can be found, it should be turned into a stub. This is an editing problem, not a deletion. --Mus Musculus 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite. Quackery. But notable quackery. NPOV rewrite should occur.--ZayZayEM 03:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with Mus Musculus.--DorisH 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If the term is actually used redirect to Racial memory (if this survives AfD). Pavel Vozenilek 01:00, 17 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Teuber (second nomination)

Previously speedied for copyvio (see above, was done today), but resuscitated in a different form that is no longer copyvio. However, notability is still questionable. Dennisthe2 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ~~NOMINATION WITHDRAWN~~, see the commentary below. Didn't realize the motive. =^^=;; --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD IS STILL ACTIVE - nomination cannot be withdrawn after delete votes have been cast. If you think that I am wrong about this, then I nominate the article pro forma myself. - Richard Cavell 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the nomination can be withdrawn, it's just that the AFD cannot be speedily closed. -- Black Falcon 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete/Speedy Delete this article looks like a no-brainer for deletion. Don't think it passess WP:Bio in any shape or form. HagenUK 21:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I would have thought that it would be recognized immediately that a Member of the IAS and an associate professor at Brandeis. Obviously publications and so on can be listed properly, as well as info about his earlier career which I think is N by itself, though it isn't as easy for me to judge; but there is at least one newspaper article on his work there. Speedy for copyvio was justified, speedy for N would not be, as it should have been clear others might have thought him N even from the stub. I'll rewrite the article, as I seem to be frequently doing. I wish these faculty guys & their friends were less lazy about it. DGG 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, remember, just being a member of a group and a prof at a university does not automagically give notability. It's like being a member of MENSA and an employee at Google - it's cool, but not a qualifier. --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

it depends on the group. IAS is a very limited circle indeed. And a major development or research position in Google is notable, and we have a number of articles on such people. It depends on the position. (just for the record) :)DGG 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The speedy was because the professor simply reprinted his faculty biography page, and there was a questionable claim of copyvio. I created a stub because the speedy delete created a red-link. Put a notability tag on it, and give the article some time. I don't understand the notion that a Wikipedia article has to be perfect within 48 hours of creation. -- TedFrank 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this has me convinced to withdraw my nomination. ~~NOMINATION WITHDRAWN~~, somebody close this? --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

...withdrawn withdrawal. --Dennisthe2 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable academic. Does not meet WP:PROF. Also, you can't withdraw a nomination when there are already advocates to delete. --Mus Musculus 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Clarification - I speedy deleted the first article that was written under this name because the text of the article was originally published under a copyright message on a University's website. It was also written by the subject of the article. A new article now exists on the same topic, written by a different author. The present problem for this AfD, on the new article, is notability under WP:BIO. If the nominator' attempt to withdraw is valid, then I nominate this new article myself pro forma in order to allow the AfD to run its course on notability concerns. I reserve my judgment on it. - Richard Cavell 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The 4 references provided establish notability in the technical sense and his being a fellow at IAS establishes notability in the more general sense. In response to Mus Musculus, a member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University is not a run-of-the-mill, generic, no-different-from-my-neighbour's-husband's-uncle, "non-notable academic". -- Black Falcon 03:14, 17 March 2007 (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, coupled with the various rewrites, makes most of this AfD discussion moot. Relist if you feel like it, immediately even. - Daniel Bryant 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chiang Kai-shek Statue

Delete - I do not think the topic of statues of Chiang Kai-shek warrants a special article and the article is not supported by any sources. The contents of this should be moved to Chiang Kai-shek. Niohe 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Chiang Kai-shek per above. Stebbins 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As Hong Qi Gong points out, the article has been expanded significantally. There is now worthwhile content, verified by several in-text citations. I have no particularly strong feelings about the notability of the current event. ~~A reference to an additional news service (besides BBC) should be added to solidify the notability claim.~~ Stebbins 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks for expanding the article Qi Gong. There can no longer be any grounds for deleting this article due to poor content or references. This article seems at least as notable as many others on Wikipedia. Stebbins 23:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete completely unencyclopedic, no references, appears to create an article out of a common pair of words simply to declare that they are "everywhere". --Ideogram 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. There's currently a political row over these statues[54]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I see what you mean, but we shouldn't turn Wikipedia into a news service. That information can be included in the death and legacy section in the article on Chiang Kai-shek, I think that is where people would look for information about the statues.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Does not warrant an article itself, and based on creator's edit history, appeared to be intended to be an attack article. HongQiGong's point is taken, but the issue can be addressed better elsewhere. --Nlu (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I've expanded the article a little bit to provide information on the controversy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This information is moderately interesting, but doesn't deserve its own article. --Ideogram 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... I don't think that's criteria for deletion. And even before the controversy, I would argue that these statues are notable enough for an article, as they are placed all over Taiwan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So are snakemeat kiosks. You think those warrant an article of their own? --Nlu (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You feel like nominating Betel nut beauty for deletion? Article's been around since 2003. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. --Nlu (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should have articles for George Washington Statue or Mao Tse-tung Poster? --Ideogram 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should have any articles about these statues either, even though I think that statues of Mao Zedong or Lenin were even more pervasive than Chiang statues have ever been. As far as I know, the controversy that this article is about was not spawned by the statues themseleves, but about the legacy of Chiang. No one is discussing the artistic value of the statues, who made them, when they were erected, or provided any statue-specific information.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

These statues have been the subject of coverage that is independent of coverage of Chiang Kai-shek. What is the reason grounded in policy that they shouldn't have their own article? I agree that the article isn't complete because it lacks "statue-specific information", but incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. The article was AFD'd 5 minutes after its creation, has been improved significantly over the past 5 days, and is on a topic that meets our notability guideline. The article does need further improvement, but that cannot occur if it's deleted. -- Black Falcon 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a trivia.--Jerrypp772000 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge information into Chiang Kai-shek. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete It does not merit its own article. Any information about these statues should be in the main Chiang Kaishek article.Zeus1234 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Article has been substantially expanded. There's enough content for this to be an article of its own. Previous deletion voters may want to re-consider their votes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Reconsidered, and as well-written as it now is, it's still not a sufficient subject for its own article. --Nlu (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I've added a reference from The China Post and two references from Taipei Times, plus two links in the External links section, one from Taiwan Security Research and one from Manila Times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the expansion and addition of multiple sources (see diff). The statue of Chiang Kai-shek is a subject related to but distinct from the man himself, and it has received published coverage independent of coverage of Chiang Kai-shek. Thus, it merits a separate article. -- Black Falcon 03:20, 17 March 2007 (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. Bucketsofg 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Rousseau

Previously, it had been decided that only Lost characters who were credited as "starring" (i.e. Jack, Eko) or had flashback episodes devoted to them (i.e. Rose, Bernard) would be given an article. Numerous attempts were made to create a page for Danielle Rousseau, who has appeared in over 10 out of over 60 episodes of Lost. Recently the page has been created again without discussion. I propose that the information on the page be merged into Characters of Lost, the article be deleted and then turned into a redirect to Characters of Lost (for easier navigation through Lost articles on Wikipedia). If this AfD fails, then pages should be created for a few other recurring characters, most notably Tom, who has been in more episodes than Rousseau, Rose or Bernard. See also these current and previous discussions: Talk:Characters_of_Lost#Danielle_Rousseau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost), Talk:Characters_of_Lost/Archive02#.22Main.22_Characters, Talk:Danielle Rousseau, Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive 4 and Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive05. Vote and discuss now! --thedemonhog 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - A highly notable character, Rousseau meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), not to mention Wikipedia:Article size as well. Wikipedia is also not paper. The argument presented that if Rousseau gets an article, then others should as well, is just flawed argumentum ad ignorantiam. Perfectly encyclopaedic, I should point out the nominator also gives no deletion rationale.. Matthew 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, merge+delete is inappropriate. I suggest the nom decide what he wants first - a merge or a deletion, and we take it from there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Very Notable character, also, there have been articles on Star Trek ships that only appeared in about 1 episode etc, so I see why not for Danielle.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Matthew already said why. - Peregrine Fisher 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Danielle is as notable as Ben and arguably more than Juliet (and definitely Rose and Benard). I should also point out that Ben hasn't had a flashback episode yet (although he is apparently going to have one in May). Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Another point: in the links you've given, there is no consensus that she shouldn't have her own article - in fact, there's more consensus for her to have her own article. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Matthew. More notable than Nikki and the other one. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. Notable character on a notable television show.--TBCΦtalk? 23:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Matthew and AnemoneProjectors. And from the looks of current episodes, she's going to feature quite majorly for a while yet Tphi 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete: Only main characters should have articles for themselves, unless they've had flashbacks (why Rose and Bernard have a page each). --Silva Storm
Comment Though its important to have guidelines, the logic behind those is now out-dated. What if Rousseau doesn't get a flashback for another season or so? The character is deserved of its own article already - far more so than, say, Nikki (Lost), despite a flashback for N&P on the horizon. Just my two cents. Tphi 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per above reasons and character notability. S e rgeantBolt (t,c) 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close this is a content dispute. If you don't believe a standalone article is appropriate, but do support a merge, then you want to use the {{merge}} template instead. Since I don't see an actual problem with this article's contents, I see no reason to delete. Mister.Manticore 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Cburnett 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep She's an important character in the storyline.--Gonzalo84 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep I was about to make a page for this character since I think it has been a long time coming. She is an important character and needs her own page. -- UKPhoenix79 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep We're gonna learn more about her anyway.- Just Phil 11:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Everyking 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Significant recurring character, played by a major name actress, who is pivotal to the plot. --El on ka 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, she is important to the plot and a notable aspect of the show, also, Tom has his own page. Nikki and Paulo have their own articles but no flashback episode (although this is about to change), and are credited as guest stars by ABC. ShadowUltra 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I created the Tom page after I saw how this "debate" was going. Nikki and Paulo are credited as main cast on-screen. Also, I should have suggested a merge instead of a delete, but this was my first deletion nomination so now I know. --thedemonhog 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Notable character in Lost. Jabrwocky7 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
More pages have been spawned due to this and Tom's pages-Alex (Lost), Christian Shephard, and Ethan Rom have been created. Should these be listed under the same deletion review? ShadowUltra 21:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I, the nominator of this deletion, created some of those pages after I saw how this was going. --thedemonhog 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - her character plays some significance to the show. Her appearance is as crucial as those of the main characters.Thricecube 01:18, 15 March 2007 (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 Redirect. Cbrown1023 talk 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Want Your Soul

We've had this issue before with Class of 3000 songs: they should be covered in the article of the episode they appear in. Further, lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia, especially ones that infringe copyrights (obviously) - see WP:NOT#IINFO. Tozoku 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - totally agree with Tozoku. HagenUK 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirects are free. --Mus Musculus 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete--ZayZayEM 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snookerpool

I'd Speedy delete this, but I can't find the correct reason (the original reason no longer applies.) Sigma 7 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Kntrabssi attempted to Prod the article, but I already created the AFD page. --Sigma 7 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Article is about a game that is not notable, and a quick Google search brings up no coherent results that show the game in current usage. Notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion, so AfD is probably the best option. Kntrabssi 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Violates WP:NOT] in that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As far as Im aware this game does not exist outside someones home --PrincessBrat 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Kntrabssi. Not notable and definitely not verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete searched Google as well and came back empty-handed. Agree with Kntrabssi on non-notability. HagenUK 21:09, 11 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jambo

del. This is English language encyclopedia. Shall we have articles about words in all languages of the world? Guten Tag, Konnichi wa, Privetik, Witam panstwo, Zdravstvuyte, Zdorovenki buly, Labas rytas, Terve, Bon giorno, Buna ziua,.... `'mikka 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Its not a question of language it's about What Wikipedia is not it is not a dictionary. The article may be appropriate for transwiki to Wikitionary. Jeepday 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, echoing Jeepday's comments above. To the nom, it's kind of a close call, but your comments almost sounds like I should point you to WP:BEANS. --Dennisthe2 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article has more content than a dictionary definition. Compare Hello. Spacepotato 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete they can have Jambo in the Swahili Wikipedia, not here. JuJube 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep See. Ciao, What's up, Ave - Latin, Shalom aleichem - Hebrew, Sat Sri Akaal - Hindi. Jambo currently contains non-dictionary information, such as information about the origin of the name of a notable elephant named Jumbo. Mayeb this article's not "quite there" yet, but given the number of foreign language greetings that HAVE evolved into nice articles leads me to vote for keeping it. Scarykitty 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- And the sentence about elephant must be deleted in the first place as unreferenced speculation. `'mikka 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Might want to take a look at WP:WAX. Two things to consider here. One, just because other similar cruft exists doesn't justify the existance of more cruft. Two, some of these articles may have justification for remaining. If anything, you've prompted a review for those articles. --Dennisthe2 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary, and per lack of sources that indicate the term has such wide significance in English publications to be much more than a dicdef; the only source listed is an online Swahili dictionary. Note that Jambo (disambiguation) points to some legitimately (if thinly) sourced articles; I read this AfD because I play the Kosmos/Rio Grande boardgame. The disambiguation page should add a link to this article if it is kept. The elephant story is uncited and has "may have been" at its core. That speculation and some usage-guide material (WP:NOT a usage guide) are the only non-dicdef content. An article should not have the same title as the subject of a disambig page, so if this is kept, it needs to be moved to Jambo (Swahili) or somne such title. Barno 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Barno.--Aldux 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a dictionary.--Pan Gerwazy 16:51, 15 March 2007 (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. Someone tagged the article with {{advertisement}}, which is just what it needs. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aveda

I posted a {{db-spam}} on this article, that deletion was contested and some improvements have since been made to the article. In my opinion the article still fails Wikipedia:Spam all the "references" are links to primary sources and as such the article fails WP:A. Additionally the article would appear to have conflict of interest issues and does not appear to meet WP:NPOV expectations I leave it to the Wikipedia community to consider. Jeepday 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I added some references. If a company is sold for US$300 million, then it is almost certainly notable, and references should be easy to find. --Eastmain 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Aveda is clearly a notable company. Article needs work, not deletion. --NMChico24 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Definitely notable. AfD isn't cleanup. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was surprised to see the emphasis on the salons and spas in the articles. I would have expected more emphasis on the products the company manufactures and sells, especially because they are sold in nearly every salon in the United States and not just the Aveda salons. I'm not a beautician or an industry insider, but I expect that there may be someone on wikipedia who is more knowledgeable than me who can improve this article? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Okay, so someone left this comment on my talk page: I'm not sure why you were surprised to see information about the Salons, and no, you cannot sell Aveda products LEGALLY without being affiliated with them. You must be an Experience, Concept, or Lifestyle salon in order to LEGALLY carry Aveda products. I am a representative for the company, and happen to know this firsthand. Aveda is not sold in every salon in the United States, to say so is an exaggeration. Maybe it would be best if you let the beauticians/Salon owners like us make the facts known, since you obviously did no research to come to your conclusion. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.177.104 (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC). I had called my esthetician sister (who promptly made fun of how I pronounced "Aveda") before making the comment to see if other salons could sell the products, since I've seen Aveda products but I've never been into one of their stores, and I guess I misunderstood. Anyway, the article still looks like an ad and still needs cleanup. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
weak keep This particular product line is probably noteworthy enough for an article, judging by the newspaper references, which are sufficient for ATT. The previous comments are a magnificent warning against doing our own OR.DGG 06:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- - - I believe that this article should be kept...if someone could please help me to figure out how it is written like an advertisement, I would appreciate it. I had originally added alot of information about the company/partnerships/guidlines, but another salon changed the page to the advertising form. I know that it isn't perfect, but I can't do it alone. This company had done alot for the environment and has been highly successful; please help improve it, don't just delete it. Thank you.
Keep and nuke all of the advert copy.

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context

Ill-conceived, impossible to complete attempt to list all appearances of deities/mythical figures in fiction. The list is relatively short but that's just because it has received relatively little attention: in theory, this list should contain every myth ever written (and many times, cross-referenced under every character that appears in them). Even just having the monotheistic God on the list would make for a list that's too long: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of God in fiction. As one comment said in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of real people appearing in fictional context, this concept practically needs its own wiki to do properly. Mango juice^talk 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, subject of the list is way too broad. As all myths are fictional and all fictional works can be considered a form of myth, this list essentially includes all characters found in fiction.--TBCΦtalk? 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment even though I agree with your vote, I want to point out that mythology collections are considered nonfiction. Using "fiction" to mean "untrue" is erroneous. A lot of categories of nonfiction are untrue. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete limitless list. JuJube 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Waaay too inclusive list, good nom. Wickethewok 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete way too broad to ever satisfy WP:LIST, and the subject is much better served by focused articles such as Werewolf fiction and Depictions of God in popular culture. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information and directory. Otto4711 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as too big to maintain, but it could potentially be broken up into a number of subjects, such as "Saints portrayed in film", "Saints portrayed in fiction", "Angels portrayed ..." "Mythical beings portrayed..." etc. Noroton 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some of the links on the list, and there are whole articles devoted to "----- in popular culture" for some of the items on this list and long sections in some of the Wikipedia articles for many of the others. This list hasn't been maintained well, and if it were, as has been said, it would be too long. For those few items that don't have "---- in popular culture" sections, I'm moving some of the information from here to those articles. Noroton 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle 04:11, 15 March 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sameh Abdallah El Alaily

Dense, unwikified article but don't let that put you off actually reading it, please. Skirts CSD-A7 - some assertions of notability, but they amount to very little. Most of article is a copy of a speech the guy made. Author says the article is his father's birthday present. The talk page carries a long list of external links that show a degree of notability or at least enough to make this an AfD matter. On that basis, we might need an article on this guy... but this isn't it, sadly.〈RED VEЯS〉 21:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep, it is one of this cases were I am tempted to say delete and some day it will be re-created. Needs lots of work though Alf^Photoman 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep He is "Urban Rehabilitation Professor at Cairo University. ..and former Dean of the faculty of Urban Planning (2000-2002)." there. This is sufficient for N. The sources listed in talk are probably enough. I have just moved them to the article. DGG 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Very weak keep - I can see VEЯS point for nominating this article for deletion. However, I also think notability is established. Obviously, the article needs a good clean-up and wikification. HagenUK 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I added descriptions of the links that I could figure out (most are in other languages) or access. Still needs more cleanup, but I think it meets WP:ATT. —Carolfrog 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FFTAGFFR

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete nn neologism. Nardman1 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --awh (Talk) 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - grubber 17:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - agree with the above opinions. HagenUK 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Dddstone 11:57, 13 March 2007 (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 redirect to Yo-yo, with no restrictions on rewriting the article "YOYO" with sources if it's possible. - Daniel Bryant 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YOYO

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete nn neologism. Nardman1 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Yo-yo—not because the two currently have similar content—but due to YOYO being a possible alternative spelling of Yo-yo. --TBCΦtalk? 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per TBC. --awh (Talk) 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Yo-yo as TBC said. I don't see the acronym as being notable enough. - Richard Cavell 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Author's Rebuttal: YOYO is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is now part of the public lexicon. I just did a Google search on "YOYO you're on your own" and found 20,500 entries. Thus, this acronym does NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day." Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0658 PST, 12 March, 2007

Delete - Non-notable acronym. The YOYO slot would be better used for a redirect to Yo-Yo. HagenUK 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite. According to these sources, YOYO was coined by D.C. economist Jared Bernstein. This article currently has no reliable sources to back up its assertions. It should be rewritten to reflect accurate provenance and usage of the acronym—mainly economic, not survivalist. —Carolfrog 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary. Dddstone 11:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:Carolfrog to allow rewriting of the article. Perhaps redirect to yo-yo in the meantime. -- Black Falcon 03:32, 17 March 2007 (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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Sligh

non-notable John Foxe 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to American Idol (Season 6).--TBCΦtalk? 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sligh is, at this point at least, only a contestant on a TV show. Are the other eleven remaining contestants Wiki-notable even after they've been eliminated?--John Foxe 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. All of the season 5 finalists have pages. All of the season 3 finalists have pages. And I believe all of the season 4 finalists have pages. According to the guidelines set forth by the WikiProject on the subject, finalists get pages. And yes, the pages stay even after elimination. The proof is here, here, here and here and here. Those are links to the "What links here" section of the templates for each season of Idol. This is the #1 show in the United States and it's highly rated elsewhere. Almost all of the contestants have had careers beyond Idol be it Broadway, CDs, fansites, etc. They are all notable if they've made the finals. I know that many people don't care for the show and many don't like that we have this many articles on the show, but I think it's necessary. And if we delete this one, then we need to delete 12 participant articles or make them all redirects...and then decided on a one-by-one basis who gets recreated after the show is on for awhile. At some point, it's easiest to keep things as they are. And the thing is, we don't know who will be successful and who won't be at this point. I mean the arguably 2 most successful acts from season 5 finished 6th (Kellie Pickler) and 4th (Chris Daughtry). I think it's just too early to ditch these. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. So I suppose you're willing to let American Idol determine how many "finalists" there are--in this case, twelve. When I think of the word "finalists," I think of the number two.--John Foxe 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Yes because that's what the show calls them. Those who make the top 24 are semi-finalists. Those who makes the top 12 are finalists (and it's been 12 for several years now). They've been referred to as finalists since season 1. Even the earliest Wikipedia articles on these folks called them finalists. Here is the first version of the article on Tamyra Gray from May 2004. And it calls her a finalist. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Why would you delete a current finalist on American Idol? This is getting annoying that American Idol finalist articles are being deleted. Nadia Turner's page got merged when she was a was in the Top 8, and is going to star in a new movie!!! It makes no sense 216.54.173.184 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is starting to get rediculous. At this point he passes WP:N. If he's eliminated quickly and falls off the face of the earth that's one thing, but that hasn't happened.--Wizardman 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. I don't understand the rush. The second articles get created, they show up here. Give it some time. If it's next January and these guys aren't doing much, then we can delete. But look at someone like Elliott Yamin. He's just now getting his debut CD out and it's been almost a year since he was eliminated. Right now, all 12 finalists are notable because they are on the #1 show on television in the US. It's just like how we have articles on stars of a current, hit tv show. It's the exact same thing. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seriously, Chris is far more famous and notable than many others who already have wiki bios. His national recognition deserves this. 5 of the other American Idol Finalists have their own pages; why not Chris? (Barang 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC))
Keep. As per many of the above, specifically Woohookitty. — mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep all Idol finalists, they meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Deleting Chris Sligh's is like voting him off the top 12.

Derrty2033 talk Derrty2033 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Keep it. I needed to find out which song he sang last week (dc Talk's Wanna Be Loved), and thanks to Wikipedia, I was able to find it very quickly and easily. (dfaber
Keep. Sligh is notable by Wikipedia standards as well as by Wikipedia consensus. This page provides useful information and should be retained.—Emote _{Talk Page} 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - an argument that Chris is not a "finalist" - irregarding the fact that AI itself has determined that nomenclature for contestants in Chris' situation - cannot pass muster if other contestants like Kevin Covais (who came in 11th in Season 5) have their own free-standing bio.--Loving CA 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If John Foxe is consistent, he will also mark the pages for other final 12 contestants for deletions, as several others have one. He has not done this, and if they are allowed to stay Chris Sligh's page should be as well. He is only marking this one because of the BJU connection, and thus doesn't care about the others in my opinion. --Elvanya 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Although Elvanya is correct in assuming that I tagged Sligh's article because of his BJU connection, I don't believe any of the 12 current contestants on American Idol are Wiki-notable unless for something other than appearing on this TV show. But then, mine is a minority opinion to say the least.--John Foxe 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment. Foxe exhibits no regard for the overwhelming consensus (everybody except him) that Sligh is notable and should have his own page.—Emote _{Talk Page} 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment. No I don't think you are right, Emote. He has a right to his opinion. Foxe, I think what you are forgetting is the scope of the show. It's seen by more people weekly than any other show in the United States. It is just like regulars on a hit sitcom or drama. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Like it or not, this guy is now a celebrity. Effer 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is such a one-sided debate, it makes me wonder why we are debating this at all. Let's keep the article. Pober157 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. John Foxe seems to enjoy wasting the time of as many people as possible on silly things like this. Perhaps he will someday decide to become the type of editor who makes useful contributions to the encyclopedia rather than clogging up the system with arguments like this.—Emote _{Talk Page} 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - definitely a notable person. - Richard Cavell 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is any reason to delete? Is Wikipedia running out of space that we can't leave up an article of Chris Sligh? Liore 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - As one other Wikimember pointed out, having an article about Chris here on Wikipedia makes it easy for the masses to find information, such as what song he sang last week and who it was from. Informaton is the very point of Wikipedea; anything that promotes or falls within the category of information should be kept on Wikipedia, hands down. Mhgood 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Woohookitty. Amphytrite 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Chris Sligh, already in top 12, already a celebrity, would be a shame to delete such a notable artist.
Keep any contestant who makes it into the top 12, although some contestants who don't even make it that far are still notable. Everyking 07:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't get why this would be deleted, like it or not, this guy is a celebrity -- there are plenty of musicians in wikipedia who are far less famous than Sligh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.254.50 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Strong Keep - Keeping with the precedent that the top 12 of American Idol, THE most popular show in America, each get their own wikipedia article. It makes perfect sense because of the show's popularity and deleting one without deleting the others is absolutely silly. THe user who suggested deletion clearly isn't thinking logically. --Mystalic 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I really don't understand why this is being considered for deletion since all of the other 12 finalists have pages, some much less developed than Chris', and none of those have been tagged for deletion. --Elvanya 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment. I'd respond but am incapable of all but incoherent babbling.--John Foxe 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment. Yep, that pretty much sums it up. --Mystalic 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep American Idol is the number #1 show on US television at present, and this (and all other Idol-related Wiki articles on the contestants who made the finals, the show's equivalent of the "playoffs") should be considered in the vein of other top shows when describing the "cast of characters", as it were. Sligh is a participant on this show, and therefore in the interest of the admittedly relative "historical accuracy" of the series' participants of the past, deleting the article wouldn't make much sense. Is the proposed deletion honestly based on qualitative reasons, or "political" ones of one stripe or other? And wouldn't a mere recommendation of expanding the article be sufficient enough for meeting Wiki's quality needs? 24.117.250.51 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep for Now He's still a finalist, which is reason enough to keep him for the time being. Even if he does manage to be eliminated, some Idol finalists have secured recording contracts, and there's no telling if he will. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. All other finalists of current season of country's #1 show have pages. Deletionism! Moncrief 21:04, 15 March 2007 (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 consensus points out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to reliable published sources.

There is no consensus here to move the article to Wikitionary. However, that does not mean that an entry couldn't be started on Wikitionary independant to this. - Daniel Bryant 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTSHTF

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO and FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as Wikipedia is not for idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day.--TBCΦtalk? 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WTSHTF is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is part of the public lexicon. I just did a Google search on WTSHTF and got 6,490 entries. Then I searched on SHTF. It had 88,600 entries! Thus, these acronyms do NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day." Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0651 PST, 12 march, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).

Do any of those hits qualify as a reliable source? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The "reliable source" factor is not what is at issue here, Arichnad! The meaning of this acronym is undisputable, so sourcing would only be an issue if the entry delved into the origin of the acronym. I cited the sheer number of Google hits on WTSHTF andSHTF to illustrate the POPULARITY of the acronym. If those numbers don't constitute common use, then you had better go through the Wiktionary on safari and start posting PRODs on several hundred *existing* wiki acronym entries for acronyms that are downright obscure, compared to WTSHTF and SHTF.
I still vote to RETAIN this entry. - Jeff Trasel, 1557 PST, 12 March, 2007

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In other words, just because other pages should be deleted, doesn't mean that this page should exist. If you find thousands of acronyms that should be deleted, then that's irrelevant to whether this page meets the notability guidelines or if the page could be adequately sourced. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Move to wiktionary at best. - grubber 17:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not even wiktionary material. HagenUK 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the replies to this vote but I stick to my Delete. If these acronyms are important to survivalists, they can be merged into their articles as a table or similar. HagenUK 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the key issue here is notability. I brought up the Google count as a useful data point in that regard. Clearly, those of you that have chimed in with "delete" votes would not have done so if you believed that the acronym was indeed notable. In some circles, such as survivalism and libertarian politics, WTSHTF and SHTF are widely known and regularly used without a second thought. Both the root phrases and their respective acronyms also seem to be more popular with certain age groups. I mean absolutely no disrespect by this--and please don't take it the wrong way--I'm merely making statement of fact. In essence, people that went to college in different decades are immersed in a distinctly different mix of popular culture icons, cliches, pet phrases, slang and so forth. This doesn't mean that any particular decade was/is better or worse than any other decade--it just means that the collective experience for each decade was different. As a data point, I went to college in the early 1980s. That was shortly after the comedy movie "Airplane" was released. (In 1980.) One of the most memorable jokes in the film included the phrase "shit hit the fan." Pardon my rambling, but I'm trying to relate--in a polite way--that there are generational differences that color perceptions and evalutaion of terms vis-a-vis relevance, popularity, and notability. Perhaps some other wiki editors would like to chime in on the notability of SHTF and WTSHTF, so that we can reach a wider consensus. I look forward to hearing from you, and will accept the consensus view with all due humility. I appreciate your input, folks!

- Jeff Trasel, 1938 PST, 12 March, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).

I vote to retain. These are common terms used in groups to include firefighters, LE, other emergency response and by disaster planners. I saw the phrase used post 9/11 and Katrina to describe devastation and overwhelming loss. Deleting this because individual(s) are unfamiliar with its use appears narrow and arrogant. I consider this project a tool to expand knowledge and common understanding, not to limit it. — EJayB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I vote to retain, its a WELL KNOWN acronym all across the USA, Europe, Australia and S. America. were about information and knowledge here aren't we? dont be PC. wally —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.25.86 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 March 2007.
Comment: Trasel and the recent two contributors may want to read Wikipedia's policy on original research. We need actual sources for an encyclopedic article. If the article creator means this entry to be no more than a dictionary definition, as his comments above (regarding usage being the issue, not sources) seem to indicate, then this entry belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. —Carolfrog 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote to retain, as First Responder and Cert. Emergency Planner, the term is used quite frequently TheRanger223 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)TheRanger223

Do you know of any reliable sources that back that up? Just because it is used quite frequently in your sphere doesn't mean that it has reliable sources necessary to stay on Wikipedia. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary. Dddstone 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RETAIN. Arichnad had asked for verifiable sources. A quick search yielded the following references to SHTF, TSHTF, and WTSHTF. The following illustrate that WTSHTF (and the truncated versions TSHTF and SHTF) do NOT fall in the category of just "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" : The Free Dictionary Wiktionary The 2006 FreeRepublic Lexicon Glossary of Internet shorthand Target Rich Environment -- The Target Rich Lexicon The Internet Acronym Server Greesnspun.com--HELP - please explain abreviations used The Firing Line Acronym List The High Road Useful Acronym List Platon.sk Comprehensive list of abbreviations and acronyms The SurvivalBlog Glossary SurvivalMonkey.com Acronym list The Oil Drum (a Peak Oil site) The Internet Slang Dictionary The Tomax 7 Internet Chat Abbreviations Acronym Finder Search Glock Talk--Here Is What The Acronyms Stand For Glossary of Terms for Combat Pistol Shooters Y2K Forum Glossary FluWiki Forum--Abbreviations GIM Popular Culture acronym list The preceding references were found just scratching the surface. Again, I think that the entry deserves retention. --Jeff Trasel 0911 PST, 13 Mar 07
- Commnet None of those seem to be reliable sources, nor does this give any reason why this should be here and not at Wiktionary. JoshuaZ 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I vote to retain, as ex Aust Army, the term was and is used quite frequently along with snafu and fubar etc which can be found in "Use and similar words in the U.S. Army" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAFU im surprised this isnt there. TILGA — Tilga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Absolutely no secondary sources describing this as a notable term. Primary sources that mention the term do not provide anything but basic information. --Mus Musculus 04:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irene Cualoping

Article appears to assert some notability now, maybe as photojournalist for Asian Week, but I'm not convinced that there's more than very sparse sources to write a neutral article from. Borderline delete although it may be possible to improve adequately. — coel acan — 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD. In that case this article needs to be wikified and cleaned up Alf^Photoman 00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello we were not done posting at time deletion note made...hangon thanks! 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. It's horrid, but I think it outlines a picture of notability through her various community leadership positions and journalistic work. AfD is not a place to push for hurried cleanup on a notable subject. --Mus Musculus 04:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Um.. never mind. I just combed through the article, removed all the unverifiable text, then removed all of the irrelevant resume text, and I'm not left with a notable person. Delete. --Mus Musculus 05:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaotic Universe

I can't find evidence that this book even exists, let alone any third-party sources. Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

--Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete all... fails Google test, no publisher named, nothing findable. Nardman1 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete them all, I can't find a single thing on Google besides the Wikipedia entry. --awh (Talk) 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Move to user space? I'd hate to find out this is the only copy of the material this person has. There is clearly a lot of (misplaced) effort here.--Hobit 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I admit that I felt a little bit of nominator's guilt with this one since it's clear this person went to so much effort. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 05:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoax or vanity. --Peta 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of any sources SmokeyJoe 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
All this might be about a computer game that never left the design stage [55] which is, of course, no reason to keep it.--Tikiwont 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete - could not find anything notable on Google either. However, the stuff is a bit too sophistacted for your average vanity/practical joke entry. Anyway, does not meet notability. HagenUK 19:33, 12 March 2007 (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with similar themes and release dates

List of trivia based on original research. —тяеɢощетн (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete per my reasonings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar plots. POV, as the article doesn't distinguish how similar in theme or how closely released two films must be in order for it to be included into the list. Also original research, as there are no sources or references to verify any of the claims made in the article.--TBCΦtalk? 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why does this article contain 37 footnotes and an external link to an article on precisely the topic in question? Did you even bother to look at the article? This article is incredibly well sourced. --JayHenry 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Most of the sources in the article link to movie reviews. In other words, opinions on movies, thus a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--TBCΦtalk? 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of WP:POV are you referring to? I don't see what section of the guideline you think is being violated. --JayHenry 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. WP:POV used to be a shortcut to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. --TBCΦtalk? 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, TBC, you might want to look at WP:POV, especially where it says:

"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy."

Movie reviewers are generally good sources for something like "this film has a very similar theme to that film which was just released a little while ago", and statements like that are hardly ever disputed in real life. And if movie reviewers can't be used, then there are news articles on movies with similar themes and release dates, and there's no doubt at all that those can be used in footnotes, if the source is responsible. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the question is over whether something can be sourced, not whether or not it has or hasn't been. So there really shouldn't be a probelm with that. Noroton 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments below: "Opinions can be cited with facts, but facts should never be cited with opinions". For example, it's valid to state that numerous authors feel that Shakespeare was one of history's greatest authors, but not so if one were to state that Shakespeare is the greatest author ever born. --TBCΦtalk? 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hate listcruft, but darn this is cool. Not voting as "I like it" isn't a good reason...--Hobit 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep: "I like it" isn't a good keep rationale, but "this is an excellent compilation of valid information not available anywhere else" sometimes is. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The lead-in paragraphs are an important part of the article and explain the point of the list. Perhaps it would be less of a target for deletion without the word 'list' in the title.Verne Equinox 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, I think the POV problems would be worse. JuJube 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per TBC JuJube 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep This is the article's third nomination.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar plots Result:Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination) Result: No consensus

In the second discussion, it was pointed out that this isn't some made up concept, but that the concept itself of films with similar themes and release dates was covered in a Washington Post article, as well as mentioned in dozens of reviews of these films. Claims of WP:OR are not valid here. --JayHenry 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

- It's kind of pointless to have a "list of x" before we have an article on x itself. I wouldn't mind seeing an article about competing cinema trends, considering this list is aribitrarily defined, especially with sentences like "Sometimes, this may be coincidental as the result of two studios independently hoping to capitalize on a current trend." I don't think the idea of a "list of things coincidentally or otherwise competing against each other" should have its own article. Also, the fact that this is the third nomination shouldn't be precedent to end this discussion- a lot of good points were brought up last time. --Wafulz 03:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I thought that it was supposed to be mentioned for procedural reasons if an article has been nominated before. I wasn't offering it as a reason to keep. My reason for keep is that a lot of editors have put a tremendous amount of work into fixing this article, and it's now a good article, with good sources. Also, I disagree with your logic that list of x is invalid if there's no article on x itself. Lists are often a far superior way to present information. Would you argue that List of baseball nicknames is inappropriate because baseball nicknames is not an article? --JayHenry 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Good sources? The only links in this article are to movie reviews. Not facts, but opinions, which clearly violates Wikipedia's policies on having a neutral point of view. Also, understand that consensus is not immutable, and that it can be changed.--TBCΦtalk? 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      - The only links are not to movie reviews. The Washington Post article at the bottom is simply not a movie review. Also, just because something is an opinion column or review doesn't mean everything in the column is unusable opinion. If an opinion columnist says "George Bush is president of the U.S..." that's still a fact. Also, I understand consensus is not immutable. I honestly only listed previous AFDs because I thought that was procedure. --JayHenry 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        However, if it's something like "A is a rip-off of B"—as evident in this particular case—then yes, it is opinionated.--TBCΦtalk? 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as this is so clearly not a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or a WP:OR issue, as demonstrated by JayHenry's arguments. Movie reviews are not only notable sources of information, they are also one of the only notable sources of information on films. Opinion problems arise only when Wikipedia editors are imposing their own opinions without any WP:ATT sources to back them up, not when a notable reviewer or author has an opinion that can be cited. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that something can be considered fact if a single notable person "has an opinion that can be cited". Otherwise, liberalism would be a "church of godlessness" as according to citations from Ann Coulter's books and Republicans and NRA members would all be racist and part of the KKK, as according to citations from Michael Moore's films.--TBCΦtalk? 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - In other words: Opinions can be cited with facts, but facts should never be cited with opinions. --TBCΦtalk? 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - there is no possible objective definition as to what constitutes a "similar theme." How many points of commonality constitute "a similar theme" and how is that determined without resorting to impermissible POV judgment calls? How much of a stretch is allowed? The list notes such films as "Lord of War," "The Last King of Scotland" and "Blood Diamond" as having similar themes based on their supposedly all being about "ambitious white protagonist[s] becoming involved in the violence of African politics" despite the films being about an arms dealer with clients around the world, a Scots doctor's relationship with Idi Amin and the Sierra Leone civil war, respectively. The films have similar themes only in a broad interpretation and that interpretation constitutes unacceptable POV. It describes "Flushed Away" and "Ratatouille" as being similar because they both have animated rats in them, despite one being set in a British sewer and the other in a Parisian restaurant. So many of the other items on the list suffer from similar problems that to simply remove them would result in a gutting of the list regardless. Additionally, there is no possible objective definition as to what constitutes "similar release dates." Most of the film pairings indicate that the films were released in different years. Some go so far as to capture films spanning from 2001 to 2006 and include remakes of earlier films as "similar." Given the incestuous nature of Hollywood it is unsurprising to find films with superficial similarities or minor thematic points in common, but that doesn't mean that such superficial similarities constitute encyclopedic information. Otto4711 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why we're letting movie reviewers point these things out. Considering how frequently the media points out these things, sourcing should not be a problem. If it gets discussed in a movie review as being a similar theme and release date to another film, then it's not an original research issue, regardless of whether the films are two months apart or seven years, and there's no need for Wikipedia editors to invent their own criteria for exactly what "similarity" entails. Including all remakes, even ones decades apart, is an editing issue rather than any kind of deletion criteria, and such things can easily be pruned out by normal editing processes. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the entire article as a concept suffers from irreparable NPOV issues. One reviewer might look at "Film with white cats released in January 2005" and "Film with black cats released in December 2006" and state in his review that they share "similar" themes and a "similar" release date while another reviewer looks at the same two films and states in her review "It's been too long since we've had a movie about cats!" or "White Cat Movie explored themes of mouse catching while Black Cat Movie takes a totally different approach by delving deep into the world of playing with yarn." and by putting the films in this list we are giving undue weight to the first review. Otto4711 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the article has a lot of POV issues that have yet to been addressed.--TBCΦtalk? 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per JayHenry's reasoning. All that is needed is a few more source citations, but this is a very good list that documents the 'competing cinema trend', and the trend seems to only be getting more more common. --Eptin 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to locate any sources that discuss this "competing cinema trend" you speak of. I'm not familiar with the concept, can you point me toward some references which describe it? Otto4711 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about the one listed in the external links section of the article you're trying to delete? --JayHenry 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The article does not appear to support the notion that there is a "trend" in Hollywood to release films with similar themes deliberately to compete with each other. Indeed, the article seems to indicate that studios don't like the idea of being the second to release a film with a similar theme, that it is an aberration for films to be marketed as the second similar film and that the conventional wisdom is that it's a bad idea. Otto4711 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If your concern is Eptin's statement that the "trend seems to only be getting more common" then I agree we should leave that out. But the WashPost article clearly delineates "a recurring phenomenon," if you're uncomfortable with the word "trend." When I read the list here, I think it already deals with your POV concerns pretty well. When a movie has significant differences as well as similarities, they are noted in the entry. But this sort of thing is really for the talk page, not for a deletion review. Theoretically, there might be a lot of POV concerns on a list like this; in actuality, it's not a significant problem. The list isn't flawed beyond the ability of a talk page to sort it out. --JayHenry 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What WaPo calls a "recurring phenomenon" I call a coincidence. And noting the differences IMHO exacerbates the POV problem rather than relieving it, since it requires editors to make subjective judgments as to what the differences and similarities are and whether the similarities outweigh the differences to a degree that allows or forbids exclusion. And I've already explained why appealing to movie reviewers or other external sources is problematic. Babe, Charlotte's Web and Animal Farm are all films about talking pigs. The Royal Tenenbaums and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are both about dysfunctional families. I Spit on Your Grave and The Accused are both about women dealing with being raped. Yes these are extreme examples (and they're from different years, which for purposes of these examples is not the point) but some of the items currently on the list are also pretty big stretches to tie them together. Otto4711 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you believe the problem is so compelling that the article must be deleted entirely I find it odd that you're not siting examples from the list. Actually, i don't find it odd. The problems are theoretical -- in actuality, this list isn't causing the kind of problems you're worried about.
WP:NPOV is about neutral presentation. It doesn't say you hide differing viewpoints or delete articles that contain differing viewpoints, it says you present them neutrally. This article does a very good job of doing that. --JayHenry 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see above in your initial post that you do site examples you find problematic. I guess it just seems to me that the POV issues you're concerned with are adequately dealt with by including the rebuttal, i.e. "Both films are about rats but one is set in a Parisian restaurant and the other in a sewer system." or whatever. That's neutral presentation. --JayHenry 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. The very existence of this list is predicated on the notion that the similarities of the films are greater than their differences and that is inherently and fatally POV-pushing. If critic 1 says Films A and B are similar and critic 2 says they aren't then listing Films A and B on a "List of similar films" at all is giving undue weight to critic 1, even if the objections of critic 2 are noted. Otto4711 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me the list just says the similarities are noteworthy. I don't think it suggests the similarities are greater than the differences. I mean, the differences are always greater than the similarities. But that's not what the list -- or this AfD discussion -- is about. --JayHenry 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. This is pretty WP:OR as is, but with ~~a few~~ several source citations, a case can be made for keeping it. --Kevin Walter 06:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it already has 38 sources, but I agree, more should (and easily can) be added. --JayHenry 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep If nothing else this article provides very useful information, especially for film buffs.60.231.76.127 10:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Careful, just because it is WP:INTERESTING doesn't mean it should be kept. --Kevin Walter 10:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And just because you can cite an essay WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL (not policy, not guidelines) doesn't mean the list isn't nontrivial, encyclopedic and a contribution that improves Wikipedia. Noroton 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom Usedup 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep because the phenomenon described is nontrivial, encyclopedic and a contribution that improves Wikipedia, and the article is verifiable and not inherently POV. Noroton 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. While an interesting idea, there are no secondary sources in this entire article. It is completely WP:OR. You can't have a list like this without each item having a citation for a secondary source that calls out those two films as being similarly themed and released. --Mus Musculus 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look more closely, you will see that (almost) each entry is indeed supported by a secondary source that identifies that the movies are similar themed. -- Black Falcon 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is a notable phenomenon [56] [57] [58] [59]. The movie industry went 64 years without an animated movie from the point of view of ants, and then two rival CGI studios each release their own ant movie the same year? That's notable, and it's not my POV; it was written about in every major newspaper and magazine in the country. It happens with other movies, and this article is a list of those notable similar films. If someone's OR has snuck into this article without references, feel free to remove it or ask for a citation.Cas510 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the 40+ sources in the article and dozens more readily available and/or noted in this AFD. When articles have titles such as "Two Films, One Subject", it's a pretty good sign that the topic is real and receives real-world coverage. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the notion that movie reviews cannot be used as sources for movies. Yes, they're opinions, but so's almost everything else in the world! Should we delete the Lebanese Civil War article because the classification of violence from 1975-90 in Lebanon as a "civil war" was an opinion? The fact is that the English language includes words, concepts, and classifications that are delibaretly vague. There is nothing wrong with using movie reviews as a source for movies. -- Black Falcon 03:42, 17 March 2007 (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. Ability to attribute sources demonstrated; consensus is to keep despite claim of non-notability. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esther Hicks

Unreferenced since December. All sources appear to be self-published. Tone has been improved somewhat, but still seems more of an advertisement than encyclopedic. Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N, WP:A Alf^Photoman 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unsourcable. All potential sources self-published.DGG 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Esther is an important individual. She is truly one of kind in metaphysics. Her name is all over the web. She deserves a definition, not recognition. Deleting her is a mistake and will be a mass confusion for those that wish to know exactly who was the person that was paid a huge sum of money from the phenomenal show "The Secret." BillZimmerman 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Esther Hicks is an important person, notable if you will, in the New Age world. She gets 1,150,000 hits on google, which is one of wikipedia's tests for notability. If the tone of the article seems wrong then the wikipedian way is to change it, not delete the article.

Carptrash 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep but improve significantly She passes WP:N because of her recent appearance in The Secret. Personally, I think her "teachings" are BS, but she's popular and notable among New Agey types. As for WP:A, I think these can be rectified with time. My biggest problem with this article is the glaring POV problems, but these too are not beyond fixing. --~Ça Suffit~ 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. It just needs to be tweaked to be in compliance. It would be foolish to delete the whole topic just because of some technicalities that can be addressed...
Keep it. Don't see any problem. This entry could have been written by anyone with any knowledge of this person. The fact that they cite publications by her is irrelevant. To write an article on Jane Austen without referencing her novels would be insane. Ditto Esther Hicks.PhiltheBear 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The books of Jane Austen are not useful as sources of factual information about Jane Austen herself. All a person's own literary output is useful for is in regarding the views of that individual – not as an independent, reliable source of information about them. — BillC ^talk 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. Esther Hicks is a significant media figure of the moment. This article is a mess. I will add two references from the NY Times to the article so it will meet the outside, reliable sources criterion. JazzyGroove 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep article is perfectly salvageable and relevant as per above.Eaglizard 02:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep . Who is Esther Hicks ? Now at least I know. What is an encyclopedia for anyway ? New Age with a smile ... could be much, much worse.(Lunarian 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Keep Stop the deletionist madness! Let's start improving incomplete articles, not deleting them. She is clearly notable, since she is a NYT-best-selling author, and has a connection to the Secret film. The article also has attained publicity in the NYT, which means she has "notoreity" (though that doesn't necessarily translated into "notability," as some claim) Keep this article, even if it's new age nonsense. I suggest that this AfD be closed early, as per the WP:SNOW guideline. - Nhprman 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Okay, looks like we've got a pretty clear majority, and this AfD has brought out new reasons to keep the article. Seeing as this is the case, can we get an Admin to snowball close this baby so we can get on with our lives?--~Ça Suffit~ 12:06, 15 March 2007 (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. - Bobet 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet slang phrases

Please note prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Internet_slang.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already tranwikied to Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:Transwiki:List_of_Internet_slang_phrases. Pan Dan 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Could this just be a redirect? meshach 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep, check the keep result of the previous AfD for a bunch of reasons. This article does add to wikipedia, if you look through you will see many of the phrases are blue linked through to their own wikipedia article. Mathmo ^Talk 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of deleting, why is it not simply redirected to the wikitionary page, it's easier for people who come to this page. Wildpixs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.23.37.97 (talk • contribs).
Comment ~~A soft redirect sounds like a good idea to me, and it seems it's even encouraged, see Wikipedia:Soft_redirect.~~ Pan Dan 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongest Keep Oh no. I never knew some of the phrases when i saw it in wikipedia i came to know about it. --SkyWalker 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Stronger than strongest delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a list of definitions and specifically prohibited by point two of WP:NOT#DICT. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and that's what most of these are. Articles on neologisms are to be avoided. And the article already exists where it belongs, Wiktionary. The reasons for keeping offered in the last AFD ranged from no reason offered other than a bare "keep" to it's useful and it's better to have it all in one place. Nothing compelling or even reasonable offered to keep it. The fact that most of the entries are "sourced" by online dictionaries ought to be a clear indicator that this is dictionary content, not encyclopedic material. Otto4711 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning for a soft redirect to the identical wiktionary article. nadav 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete As has already been pointed out, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is a list just containing definitions of words. The policy is very clear on this matter: "Wikipedia articles are not:Lists of such definitions". You couldn't get a much clearer answer then that. We are not here to judge if the list is fun or interesting, we are here to determine if it is allowed by policy, which clearly it isn't. Those of you who think we should keep this article, please present an argument based on policy. Pax:Vobiscum 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
On second thought a soft redirect may not be the best solution in this case. How about delete this article, redirect to Internet slang,(inserted later agreeing w/ belowPan Dan 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) and insert a {{wiktionary}} link at the top of Internet slang to Wiktionary:Transwiki:List of Internet slang phrases (which will eventually be merged into Wiktionary:List of Internet slang phrases at which time we can change the link). Pan Dan 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and soft redirect to the appropriate Wiktionary listing(s) OR delete and redirect to Internet slang, with a prominent cross-project link to the appropriate listing(s) -- saberwyn 11:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Additional: Would also support categorisation of entries in the list with articles, and/or the inclusion of the two or three most heavily cited sources as sources or external links in the Internet slang article. -- saberwyn 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect. I'll agree with the last comment, a redirect to Internet slang and in that article having a link to the Wiktionary list. --Zidane2k1 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well worth keeping, just referred this to a newbie. Best thing I found via Google on the topic. The redirect to the other article proposed above, which I also looked at, would not have helped me explain this to the newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.49.11 (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep well cited glossary of internet slang. Notability asserted by references, which also takes care of any POV problems. I know being useful is frowned upon in an essay (not a guideline or policy), but I just used this page to figure out what someone was saying on another talk page. Transwiki'ing basically means you'll never hear from this page again, wiktionary just doesn't cut it with google searches. Redundancy is a good thing, in this case. Also, like someone said in the previous AfD, not that different from List of elements by symbol. - Peregrine Fisher 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. If Wiktionary can use this list, good for them. However, this list aids in navigation and is, moreover, referenced, NPOV, NOR, etc. WP:WINAD is inapplicable as this list is a supplement to Internet slang and a navigation aid. -- Black Falcon 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- On being a navigation aid, I think what you're looking for is List of Internet phenomena. Any legitimate encyclopedia article linked to from List of Internet slang phrases, like LOL (Internet slang), should be linked to from List of Internet phenomena. Any non-legitimate (i.e. candidate for transwiki-and-delete) article that is linked to from List of Internet slang phrases should be transwikied and deleted. On being a supplement to Internet slang, I agree, and that's exactly what the {{wiktionary}} template is for. Pan Dan 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete pwn Lugnuts 11:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep as per above comments. Seraphim Whipp 11:57, 17 March 2007 (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. Chaser - T 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of paintball scenario teams

A completely useless, unencyclopedic, unverifiable list. The teams listed here are not notable. I was the one who originally seperated this article from List of professional paintball teams to avoid debating and arguments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RavenStorm (talk • contribs).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as either wp:csd#g7 or wp:csd#a7. (Valid G7 because the content has not changed substantially since creation and the creator is now requesting deletion, and valid A7 because there is no assertion of notability for any of these teams. Pan Dan 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. Pax:Vobiscum 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Notable as the list is in context. Ranking is not applicable to the genre but participation is an essertion of merit. Teams should be listed if able to prove active play in last six months at a large scale event. Outlaw rec ball does not a scenario team make. {Karpet} 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't exactly see what you're trying to say. Yes, it may be acceptable in Wikipedia as a list, but how do you determine which teams to include and which not to? I could start a paintball scenario tomorrow and play a few tournament games, that means I'm worth being mentioned in Wikipedia? There is no reasonable standard of notability... as I mentioned above, this list was seperated from an actually notable article, list of professional paintball teams, to avoid controversy. I guess I should've proposed it's entire deletion instead of just moving this list; my bad. RavenStorm 01:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Please don't shoot me. Noroton 22:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Which method of execution would you prefer? ;) -- Black Falcon 03:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Claiming that this is a "list of notable X" is not enough. The list has to prove that the persons/groups on it are notable. -- Black Falcon 03:53, 17 March 2007 (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 Gnan garra 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karmein Chan

A murder victim, who is not well known, nor did her death lead to anything of import (laws, books etc.); her murder is already covered in the article on the murderer. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be considered with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: as per my comments at the AfD for Ebony Simpson, this case dates from 1991 and 1991 cases are less likely to attract google hits than more recent cases - this was a very major news story for a long period of time - significantly more notable in my view based on coverage particularly by the tabloid press and women's magazines than say the Brian Burke scandal which somebody thinks worthy of an article. WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. I am disappointed that deletion debates focus on what people think might be notable rather than actual independent objective criteria. The Karmein Chan case was the subject of many many newspaper and magazine stories. I have difficulty with comments from people who were too young and/or not in Australia who would be unable to judge the amount of coverage this topic received.If they can't judge on that basis then they need to use the objective criterion provided by WP:Bio is that she meets the notability threshold. Notwithstanding these comments, I accept that as at the Ebony Simpson AfD, this article might be better merged with that of the murderer and discuss the murder and aftermath.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares about google hits; there is nothing verified in this article which is an issue given that it talks about her living parents. --Peta 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - she was all over the news in Australia. She's an inherently notable person, though probably not for anything that she did. - Richard Cavell 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this is a horrific case that dominated Australian news for a good few years so surely that's reason enough to keep it. Also, if fictional television characters deserve to have their own pages then surely a murdered child involved in a major and still unsolved case should have their own page. And she is 'well known' to Australians. There are many celebrities who aren't well known in other countries not of their nationality yet they still have pages so the same applied for Karmein Chan. - Cosmic_quest 23:01, 12 March 2007

Keep - Important event of history in Melbourne. If you want delete something truly banal, try Clea Rose. Prester John 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Only notable for her connection to her murderer, and he is covered adequately.DavidYork71 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- No he isn't. His identity is not known. It's only postulated that one guy committed all those child rapes. - Richard Cavell 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- very well known murder victim. The face of Chan was plastered all over billboards in Melbourne during the early 1990's and many would remember the incident. Meet's WP:BIO. -- Longhair\^talk 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 22:23, 15 March 2007 (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. - Bobet 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica Lee (model)

Article does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Reason for AFD was due to the fact that the speedy delete was contested by another user, hence the move. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per not meeting the criteria for WP:PORNBIO, as I had first indicated when adding the speedy delete notice. Luke!
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. --Mus Musculus 14:33, 15 March 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pagat.com

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:A Alf^Photoman 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It plainly meets WP:A, with at least 200 pages of the site independently attributed by whatever the leading sites for every different game are, so your comment doesn't make any sense. This website is actually a prototype for what we want in terms of WP:A. Some additional material is the primary source for obscure game rules, but for games that have multiple authoritative websites devoted to them, this site is almost always cited as a reliable reference. 2005 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Bencherlite 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing delete vote in light of comments below and addition of a reference to the article - although if the article had been written with an eye to WP:WEB, particularly "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section", this debate would have been unnecessary. Keep and expand. Bencherlite 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; violates WP:WEB --Mhking 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Plainly meets WP:WEB. The website is the preeminent card games website on the Internet, with literally thousands of non-trivial online references from the International Playing Card Society on down. Please do some research before making afd's... added... and also the random removal of links added by many different editors that clearly meet WP:EL calls this whole afd into question. Please act responsibly. 2005 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This is clearly the most authoritative website about card games on the Internet, and it's well-known as such. Rray 07:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. 56.000 google hits. The site is strongly recommended in David Parlett's book "Teach Yourself Card Games", so we have at least one very authoritative mention in the dead forest media.Punainen Nörtti 11:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Agree with other keep opinions in spades. Dddstone 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. There seem to be some clear feelings about this article, but where is the proof that this site is notable? There are no secondary sources mentioning that it is notable or an important Web site. That is required. Being mentioned in a book is not a proof of notability, especially if the mention is, "Here's where you can go to play games online." You need secondary sources stating that this Web site is important. --Mus Musculus 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Parlett's mention is a full-page praise of the site, mentioning that it is the single best source for rules of card games. Thus, Parlett's book a secondary source stating that it is an important web site. (Do you want to have quotes?)Punainen Nörtti 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Well ideally, I want a source that I can verify. But I'm prepared to take your word for it and change my vote to Keep. --Mus Musculus 20:03, 15 March 2007 (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 all 124 listed articles. note I'm using popups to delete, please contact me to have any erronously listed articles restored Gnan garra 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1850-51 Australian cricket season

Not a notable cricket season, article effectively empty. The matter has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#1877-78 Australian cricket season. This AfD is intended to cover all similar articles where no additional information about the season has been included. It does not cover the 1977-78 Australian cricket season , 1876-77 Australian cricket season , 1980-81 Australian cricket season , 1932-33 Australian cricket season, or the 1928-29 Australian cricket season - each of which have had content added and claims to notability. In the discussion at WikiProject Cricket, it was noted that it should be possible to write a meaningful article when there had been a real competition in place: domestic or international. Similarly for tours. The difficulty arises when, as in the 1877-78 Australian cricket season, there was very little domestic competition and no international interest, and is even more problematic for earlier years when there is very little record of anything much "official" happening. The template for the articles is at Template talk:Australian cricket seasons to make it easy for editors to create articles with a similar look and feel. I believe however that red links are better than effectively empty blue links. The prod of the 1876-77 Australian cricket season was objected to, hence the escalation to AfD. Delete Golden Wattle ^talk 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note - have only had time to tag up too 1879/80 with {{subst:afd1|1850-51 Australian cricket season}} so far - it is a very time consuming process and I have real life pressures.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from articles mentioned above, also excluded are 1940-41 to 1944-45 Australian cricket seasons and 1915-16 to 1917-18 Australian cricket seasons as being not empty.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also 1903-04 Australian cricket season , 1898-99 Australian cricket season, 1913-14 Australian cricket season , 1910-11 Australian cricket season , 1878-79 Australian cricket season , 1925-26 Australian cricket season , 1927-28 Australian cricket season, 1937-38 Australian cricket season are no longer entirely "empty". --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The argument above seems to me to be incontrovertible, and the user who created these shell articles is no longer contributing, so whatever plans he had for filling these out are now not likely to take place. Golden Wattle has been commendably assiduous in seeking out and listening to the views of WikiProject Cricket members before putting this note up. Johnlp 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. —Moondyne 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. However - if someone was willing to do it, the results might be a nice addition to the year in Australia series. --Peta 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Though I hate to see a cricket article go, this one is speediable at the moment under CSD-A3 as simply a collection of links and a rephrasing of the title. Saying that the 1850-51 season took place in late 1850 and early 1851 does not an article make. Grutness...wha? 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Having those seasons as redlinks makes it look as though there was cricket played but noone has written an article yet. The articles should simply state that almost no cricket was played in that year, and why, in order to make things clear to the reader. Raffles mk 11:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the case is indeed that "cricket played but noone has written an article yet" not that no cricket was played. For example the article 1915-16 to 1917-18 Australian cricket seasons states no cricket was played and hence I have excluded it from the debate as I agree that is meaningful information. The other articles do not clarify if any cricket was played or not - they are actually perhaps misleading--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question Is there a "master article" that such articles/redlinks could be redirected to? Maybe the Intercolonial cricket in Australia article mentioned below? -- saberwyn 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I love cricket as much as the next Aussie, but these articles are about as notable as 1422-23 Australian cricket season. Lankiveil 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all that don't have additional content. They could be made into proper articles, but it would be better for them to be redlinks until that happens. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Might it be a reasonable compromise to merge all Aussie seasons pre, say, 1877 into one article until such time as there is enough information for separate articles? Or maybe on a by-decade basis? Grutness...wha? 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. See Intercolonial cricket in Australia, which is not an obvious title for non-Australians, but covers some of the ground in a single article. Johnlp 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to merger proposal: Intercolonial cricket is only surely part of the first class cricket story. I think still delete empty articles not redirect to an article that only partly helps; redirects mask that the info is missing from the wikipedia just as the effectively empty articles do. There are for some seasons perhaps some great articles waiting to be written.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge all 19th century articles into one article - Ozzykhan 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. That's a thought. A difficulty is that we're up against, in all of this, our former (and respected) colleague's thought patterns (which aren't necessarily entirely logical, nor necessarily to be followed now that he is gone). The "predecessor" article to Intercolonial cricket in Australia is, for instance, called History of Australian cricket to 1850, which sounds more like what User:Ozzykhan wants for the whole 19th century, and which makes sense to me. But User:Golden Wattle's point, which I agree with, is, I think, that we have a host of articles here that have no content that is worth merging into anything. Johnlp 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete only those lacking content. Most do not state anything other than "The 18XX-YY Australian cricket season took place in late 18XX and early 18YY). It is better to have the articles redlinked so that someone will (properly) create them rather than having them as redirects. -- Black Falcon 04:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To the closing admin. I have compiled the list of the 124 articles that lack content (as of about 10 minutes prior to this post) and are therefore covered in this AFD. This should make it easier to delete the appropriate ones and leave the rest (note: I have not tagged them all with subst:{{afd1}}). -- Black Falcon 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alison McMahan

IMDB only lists her as an assistant director on a project [60], with no mention of the other films listed in this article. The only thing I could find to corroborate this article is the official website [www.alisonmcmahan.com] which was clearly the source for this article as it skirts the edge of being a copyvio. All the external links are websites associated with the subject to purchase her goods. I don't see any evidence of them being distributed by others. IrishGuy ^talk 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I felt that this article was relevant to IMDB because she is linked to on other IMDB pages, because of her work with the Alice Guy Blaché biography and the critical analysis of Tim Burton. Since her name was in red on those pages, it seemed to me that it was appropriate to the link lead to something. If the use of her biography is a copyright violation, then I will happily edit it. Thank you for your comments. Rainb 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, she only has one credit on IMDB. As for the Tim Burton article, you added the external link. IrishGuy ^talk 08:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true, I added the external link to her book on the Tim Burton page, which I did because her book was previously sited as an academic source for the page. The link that I followed that made me realize there was no page was the one on Alice Guy Blaché. I mistyped above when I wrote IMDB - I meant to Wikipedia - she is linked off of other Wikipedia pages. I apologize for the mistype. Rainb 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete, no assertion or proof of notability. --Mus Musculus 14:47, 15 March 2007 (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. - Bobet 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dino (language)

Not an actual fictional language, just a puzzle from a game: English-language text with letters substituted for different ones (see Caesar cipher). Creator removed WP:PROD notice without any explanation. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete obviously non-notable, as itself, and clearly covered in Caesar Cipher. Might as well, merge, though I don't there's anything to merge. --Haemo 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is not a Caesar cipher but rather a simple substitution cipher since it doesn't shift the letters but maps vowels to vowles, making it easier to pronounce. Substitution ciphers in popular culture already has two similar examples. --Tikiwont 12:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete (in Dino, that would be Tocoko) Just another substitution cipher, but I like that the substitute words are pronounceable. That does not make it notable, and a very large number of such substitutions could be created. Edison 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no sources or proof of notability. --Mus Musculus 14:50, 15 March 2007 (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 -- Note that WP:NOTNEWS is a rejected policy, delete arguements based on this have been discounted. Gnan garra 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu

A murder victim; her murder is covered in the alleged murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that process has not been followed - in particular there was no clear edit summary notifying of the nomination. This nomination should be considered with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - she is definitely notable, particularly while the guy charged with her murder is still facing charges. - Richard Cavell 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete since so far there is just one functioning link to an article which says someone is to be tried for the crime. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor is it the daily court reporter. See also the proposed WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. As can be seen from the most elementary google search she meets that criterion - the case was well reported with analogies being drawn to the James Bulger case, and even the suggestion that the murderer might have been one of the perpetrators in the Bulger case.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this case would indeed meet the notability threshold under the proposed NotNews policy as the case was the subject of newspaper coverage such that the the news item has received multiple paragraph coverage in multiple distinct articles over a multiple week time frame. --Golden Wattle ^talk 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable per news articles about her. We don't seem to have a policy on people who are temporarily notable due to news events, so.. --Mus Musculus 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I have no opionion about whether or not this should be kept, but it does seem most of the facts of the case are covered at Dante Arthurs. Do we really need two? And the mention of the rumor about Arthurs' identity seems out of place here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 22:23, 15 March 2007 (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 and renamed as Murder of Ebony Simpson Gnan garra 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebony Simpson

A murder victim; her murder is covered in the murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial.--Peta 23:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't think this article is written as a memorial. There are other articles on murder victims. I have heard of the victim rather than the murderer. It is one of the more notable cases.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Typically because they otherwise meet WP:BIO.--Peta 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - There are three other children in Category:Murdered Australian children, there are 30 articles in Category:Australian murder victims - people like Janelle Patton and Peter Falconio were not notable before being murdered either.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - One could suggest that this is a problem of recentism, there seems to be an article on every notable Australian murder, but rather than covering the crime in a good article there is an article on the victim(s), the criminal and they exist separately as biographies. In my experience on AFD; BIO and NOT are widely applied to victims of crime. Pan Dan make a good suggestion - and it does need to be applied to multiple Australian crime articles. --Peta 00:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither this article nor Andrew Garforth are bios. Together they're about the murder and its aftermath. Merge the two and rename as Murder of Ebony Simpson or something like that. Pan Dan 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think as per Pan Dan's suggestion and Peta's follow up point, it would be a good idea if the cases were discussed rather than individual articles on the perepetrator and the victim unless it is necessary to break out. The Graeme Thorne kidnapping is a good example, as are The Murchison Murders. Suggest this discussion needs to happen elsewhere - perhaps WP:AWNB or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian crime--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note also related debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmein Chan 2 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep (or Merge) - this case was front page news at the time. Needs to be on its own or in an article on the case. Agree with Golden Wattle and Pan Dan. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Pan Dan Ga rr ie 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - was a major news story at the time; requests for expansion is the correct procedure to use here, not an AfD. JRG 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I doubt that good sources can be found or that it can be more than a memorial article. This sad case does not demonstrate notability. The only source which is not a proforma court document is a book which gained very little attention (only 13 Google hits for the book and no Amazon sales rank) and the case itself has almost no Google hits besides blogs or sites echoing the Wikipedia article. If there was coverage in local newspapers at the time of the murder and the trial, then add that to the article, but then compare it to the proposed guideline WP:NOTNEWS. The article about the killer also deserves deletion. Edison 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 1992 cases are less likely to attract google hits than more recent cases - this was a very major news story for a long period of time - significantly more notable in my view based on coverage particularly by the tabloid press and women's magazines than say the Brian Burke scandal which somebody thinks worthy of an article. WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. I am disappointed that deletion debates focus on what people think might be notable rather than actual independent objective criteria. Ebony Simpson was the subject of many many newspaper and magazine stories. Dating from 1992 most of these are not online. She is still however mentioned from time to time in the newspapers. She is the subject of a book. I have difficulty with comments from people who were too young and/or not in Australia who would be unable to judge the amount of coverage this topic received.If they can't judge on that basis then they need to use the objective criterion provided by WP:Bio is that she meets the notability threshold. Notwithstanding these comments, I accept that as above, the article might be better merged with that of the murderer and discuss the murder and afermath.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Edison, it is articles like this that help Wikipedia rise above the lowest common denominator material which occupies a large chunk of the internet. This was really front page news at the time and much more notable than current google hits may indicate.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete a murder victim. She is not otherwise notable. Wiki is not a place for memorial articles.DavidYork71 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's not a memorial article. This was a MAJOR news story in Australia in 1992. JRG 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge this and related articles to create one single holistic article on the crime, not multiple articles on the people involved. -- saberwyn 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This is a case where the victim of the crime received much more coverage than the murderer. If celebrities or serial killers get a page, there is no reason this needs deleting. This is not a memorial. This event received national news coverage in 1992 - I know, I live in Sydney Australia and remember it well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boutan (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep -- meets WP:BIO. Major national news at the time. -- Longhair\^talk 21:22, 15 March 2007 (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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of Over the Hedge 2 characters

[edit] List of diss songs

[edit] Cronos (Robot)

[edit] Mesut Kurtis

[edit] Mark Twain Productions

[edit] 23 (numerology)

[edit] David Picker

[edit] Go-Kustom Films

[edit] Andreas Teuber

[edit] David 'Rat' Pitsock

[edit] Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League

[edit] Jonathan D. Schwartz

[edit] List of communists

[edit] GEWar

[edit] The Hippie Jihad

[edit] Mambo (swahili)

[edit] Wikia

[edit] Advertising by Westpac

[edit] Psychogenes

[edit] The Mep Report

[edit] Wicked Cow Entertainment

[edit] Wäntage USA

[edit] Shark in love

[edit] Jo Malone

[edit] List of AMC couples

[edit] Dancing With The Sith

[edit] Warren P. McGuirk

[edit] Barbara Schwarz

[edit] Nomination statement

[edit] Section 1

[edit] Section 2

[edit] Section 3

[edit] Section 4

[edit] 9fans

[edit] Ethics and evolutionary psychology

[edit] Google Earth Hacks

[edit] Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria

[edit] Sylvia and Gerry Anderson

[edit] Linux kernel mailing list

[edit] Skeletor vs Beastman

[edit] Doug Dillinger

[edit] Hamilton County Democratic Party

[edit] Reggae Reggae Sauce

[edit] Vodei Multimedia Processor

[edit] Otaku's Dream Mix

[edit] Japanese Leet, Hong Kong Leet

[edit] Daniel_Broderick

[edit] Levi Roots

[edit] Volapuk encoding

[edit] List of samples used by Boards of Canada

[edit] Nintendo NSider Forums

[edit] The grand war

[edit] Jeff Foster (nonduality)

[edit] Naomi Betts

[edit] Pamela Gemin

[edit] University College London Conservative Society

[edit] King's College London Conservative Society

[edit] Oxford University Conservative Association

[edit] Joseph palazzo

[edit] Tabiat

[edit] Brian Michael Jenkins

[edit] Getpid

[edit] Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1

[edit] Isidro Mosquea

[edit] Józef Kloze

[edit] Sandra Magsamen

[edit] Ronan Handcock

[edit] List of Cheesecake Factory locations

[edit] Mark Joseph Phillips

[edit] Pasion Mura

[edit] Julian Fane

[edit] Squacketball

[edit] List of The Daily Show correspondent titles

[edit] Natalie Phillips

[edit] List of concept albums (narrative)

[edit] Nine Inch Nails advertising

[edit] List of Philippine radio and television stations