Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 14

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Bucketsofg 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Hollick

Helen Hollick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The prod was contested several weeks ago with the comment "I disagree". So I'm bringing it here. I believe the subject doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and lacks sufficient reliable sources for attribution. Most of the sources that I found via Google or are provided in the article are just a list of books. The single substantial source was this piece from a (minor?) historical fiction society detailing a visit with Ms. Hollick.

Most of her books' articles were prodded or speedily deleted as spam. Also nominating:

• The Kingmaking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wafulz 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing nomination. Sources have been presented. I suggest rewrite and cleanup. --Wafulz 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources or references are evident to verify the notability of the author. Also, the majority of her books are only self-published (BookForce UK is a self-publishing company).--TBCΦtalk? 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete no sources, couldn't find any notability. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As TBC notes, things look self published. I can't find much in the way of reviews (and no reviews from publications of any type)Given the information below, I change to Keep. My bad. --Hobit 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable author. Due to the new sources and vote changes that borders WP:SNOW, I think we should keep and rewrite it instead. Wooyi 01:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment She is NOT entirely self published. It took a little digging, but "Arrow/Childrens" is an imprint of RandomHouse in the UK, and according to this site that is who published her books Kingmaking, Harold the King, Pendragon's Banner and Shadow of the King. Her book "Come and Tell Me" was published by HarperCollins. I assume her books went out of print and that she started reissuing them herself, which shouldn't sway us one way or the other, frankly. Worthy authors will do the same thing. At this point I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete. I think that depends on some kind of independent recognition of her talent, doesn't it? At least some book reviews, I suppose. Noroton 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I never said she was entirely self published, only that a majority of her books were.--TBCΦtalk? 03:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but I get the impression that the majority weren't "only" self-published. Minor point anyway. Noroton 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• CHANGE TO KEEP (for reasons, see my comments below)Delete because I can't find book reviews that I can identify as from sources other than blogs, or other coverage besides the one TBC found. I did find this item in Rare Book Review but it's extremely short, not a full article. I'd change my mind if someone could point me to at least a couple of full-fledged articles about her somewhere, which I think would satisfy WP notability. Noroton 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow up After being contacted to review my delete vote since the introduction of some sources, I still think this is a valiant effort towards self-publicity. I affirm my vote. /Blaxthos 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Self-publicity is something a little cleanup can handle. The article is short enough that a full re-write would be simple. In particular, the quotes from reviews need to be removed for copyright and WP:NPOV purposes- it's kind of silly to base critical reception on a quote which the author decides to present on her website. It'd be much easier to have access to the full reviews. --Wafulz 22:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Change to KeepI too am chaging my vote to keep, now refs have been added it meets WP:V and I think it gets a pass on WP:BIO.Tellyaddict 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per above reason by Telly Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to KEEP, has been re-written and sourced well. Could use some more work, but certainly no longer warrants deletion. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 23:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT. I am Helen Hollick. I am a respected and well known author of mainstream historical fiction. I do not know how to use this site, I trust I have not made any errors with this insertion. Until today I was unaware I had an entry here.

BookForce UK is my printer, I am published, now, by Discovered Diamonds, which is the new, small independent mainstream branch of BookForce. You are confusing self publish with vanity publish. I have a full mainstream contract with this company. ONLY my latest novel "Sea Witch" is "technically" self published, my Arthurian Trilogy and Harold the King are re-published editions of out of print books published previously by William Heineman. I trust you are not going to penalise respected authors who wish to keep their books in print and who have no choice but to "self publish" when their mainstream books fall out of print! We do have a living to make, and our back lists are very important.

My novel A Hollow Crown remains in print with William Heineman. My children's personal safety book Come and Tell Me is published by Happy Cat Books. This book was the official Home Office safety Book for ten years.

I am a member of the Society of Authors. I am co-script writer for a pre-production movie "1066"

You will find plenty of up to date information about myself at www.helenhollick.net

I am about to go on my second lecture tour in the Netherlands, (subject, Harold the King) I have been guest speaker on several occasions for the Historical Novel Society. I have written several articles for various magazines - I refer you to my articles etc on my web site.

The Historical Novel Society is an international highly acclaimed society. Your information regarding my books, I am afraid, is inaccurate and out of date.

a selection of reviews from my initial publication with William Heineman:

"A wonderful book...breathes new life into an ancient legend" Best selling Historical fiction author Sharon Penman

Hollick's interpretation is bold, affecting and well worth fighting to defend." Publishers Weekly, November 11 1996

"Helen Hollick joins the ranks of Rosemary Sutcliff, Mary Stewart and Marion Bradley with this splendid novel" Pendragon Magazine

"Uniquely compelling...bound to have a resounding and lasting impact on Arthurian fiction" Books Magazine

"Weaves together fact, legend and inspired imagination to create a world so real we can breathe the smoke of its fires and revel into Romano-British lust for life, love and honour" Historical Novels Review

"A uniquely compelling novel which is bound to have a resounding and lasting impact on Arthurian fiction." Books

"An epic tale... Helen Hollick has done her homework meticulously and her story gleams with convincing Dark Age detail." Ms. London

Whether the events described actually happened this way is unimportant, that the reader feels instinctively that they could have happened this way is the sign of a superior novel. This is a fabulous read and one to be recommended unreservedly - even to committed "Williamites". If only all historical fiction could be this good." Sara Wilson, Historical Novel Society, 2001.

"Local author Helen Hollick has achieved a miracle by making this reviewer sit still and silent for a whole weekend, stirring only to eat toast whilst devouring Helen's gripping book. And it's a damn big one at that, sweeping from England to France, from Wessex to Normandy, following the fortunes of Harold Godwine, Earl of Wessex and later King of England, and William, Duke of Normandy. Treachery, arrogance, lies and weakness contrast with courage, honesty, strength and of course, plenty of love interest to make you weep. Illegitimacy, fallen kings, plenty of hunting scenes and some great sea journeys and bloody battles; we follow the fortunes of the cast from 1044 right up to the Battle of Hastings itself, which is brilliantly recreated.

Helen also provides at the end an explanation for some of her plot "changes" - for example, her Harold is not killed by the arrow in the eye at all, but is beheaded - on the grounds that as most of the information concerning the battle and William's claim to the English throne comes from Norman sources its veracity is questionable. Compelling stuff." SW Magazine, March 2001

"Countdown to conquest. Today, one could be forgiven for thinking that Tony Blair's Labour government had invented spindoctoring. In her epic story, retelling the tide of events that led to the Norman Conquest, Helen Hollick shows us the truth. England 1044. The Godwine family is one of the most powerful families in England. As Earl Godwine's six sons start to reach maturity, so they are rewarded with power and influence. Harold Godwine, skilled at both the machinations of court and at fighting, has inherited all his father's diplomatic skills - but none of his lust for battle. In France, William, bastard son of a duke, is brought up at the court, but trained to be a soldier. Attractive and arrogant, he is an exciting leader, inspiring his men to ever greater victories.

Though still precociously young, his fame begins to spread. When events in England take a dramatic and bloody turn, the Godwines are forced into exile. They must fight their way back into favour, and a power struggle ensues, which will eventually make Harold king. But William has already seen the weakness which exists in England ... the Battle of Hastings is the terrible and bloody result.

Following the battle, William's spindoctors justify the atrocities that have taken place and his claim to the throne. They advise him to build Battle Abbey as a penance, and ensure that all information comes from Norman sources. In this masterly and colourful recreation, Helen Hollick weaves together the history of a powerful family of noblemen, with that of the aggressive bastard of Normandy - culminating in the fierce and tragic battle which changed the course of England's history." Bolton Evening News, 21 Oct 2000.

"This re-telling of the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings in 1066 through the eyes of the men and women involved mixes together historical fact with plenty of personality. Hollick, whose previous novels were about Arthurian Britain, juxtaposes the stories of Harold and William as events conspire to produce the Norman Conquest.

What is most inspiring about Hollick is that she can produce such a mammoth book from a household where she is the only reader - both her husband and daughter suffering from severe dyslexia." Cliff Moore, Dorset Evening Echo - Weymouth - 28 Oct 2000

I will be happy to provide you with any other information you require

I can be contacated via my website

www.helenhollick.net

Helen Hollick—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.188.151 (talk • contribs).

• Comment. Hm, I'm willing to give it you the benefit of the doubt and I'll probably end up withdrawing the suggestion to delete once I have time to give this a more in-depth look. The articles will have to be rewritten substantially for Wikipedia guidelines though. --Wafulz 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've just sent an email to Helen Hollick through www.helenhollick.net. A copy of the email is at my talk page here. If she can send me the information we can use to establish notability, I will be happy to add it to the story. I've also changed my vote to "Keep", basically on faith that we can get the right confirmation in the article (presumably from articles not on the Internet). I think if we do this that it would satisfy editors here, and I hope any administrator would extend this debate if need be, for a few days if that's what it takes to get it done. Noroton 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Can agree with withdrawal in that, now, with the sources that have been presented, it can be cleaned up to conform with policy. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 23:09, 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 08:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Shooting

Wii Shooting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject has not been shown to meet notability criteria. No reliable sources have been provided after nearly a month from being tagged. The only verifiable information is a rumor that has been spread mostly on gaming blogs and fansites. Most of the content in the article constitues original research, which fails Wikipedia:Attribution. Many web search results for "Wii Shooting" refer to the Duck Hunt-style shooting demo at E3 that was incorporated into Wii Play, and not a separate game. Dancter 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; the article itself even admits that "it is unlikely the game exists." Krimpet 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The first line says it is a "rumored Wii game." The article, likewise, should not yet be released. ◄Zahakiel► 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, especially since the only citation in the article comes from a blog.--TBCΦtalk? 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lol, it doesn't even exist. Come on, guys? Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystal balling. Even if it was definitely in development, it still would not meet our notability criteria. Not every game is notable. --- RockMFR 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't agree with that, espeically since athletes who only compete in 1 game are considered notable. TJ Spyke 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reliable source please? Original research and rumors in this article.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL
• Delete since it is "unlikely to exist", obviously! — brighterorange (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The article itself states why, it's a RUMORED game (i.e. doesn't exist). TJ Spyke 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable information. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - do I hear the sound of a snowball heating up? --Action Jackson IV 07:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yelling Delete while throwing a snowball at Action Jackson. :-) Real96 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is failing WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and could be seen as just a myth, failing WP:V because of the lack of sources.Tellyaddict 18:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• We're not ready for this yet. Delete per nom. Until this game is announced, I think we should delete this. Bigtop 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and we may as well call WP:SNOWBALL on this one as well. Snowball's chance in hell of passing this AfD. There's nothing to indicate Nintendo has released information about this game. That means it automatically fails WP:V, because there's no possible way to verify it's existence, even as a development product. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:10, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:12Z

[edit] Online dating service clichés

Online dating service clichés (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research with no sources or references to verify any of the claims made in the article. The article also has numerous POV issues, as it doesn't explain how many times a line or photo has to be used in order for it to be considered a "cliché". TBCΦtalk? 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Entirely unverified, and leaves out, "Come to this website often?" ◄Zahakiel► 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and NOT belonging here. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• DElete This article should be highly improved or deleted because of original reserch.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be OR. Definitely subjective (what is a cliche?) and unencylopedic (just why?). WjBscribe 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep the above arguments about this being unsourced are wrong, because there is a source in the references section. Catchpole 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If you actually read the source, you'll realize that only 4 clichés are listed on that website, and there are 18 in the article. Where did all the others come from? The WP article is entirely original research, not even properly deriving the verifiable information from the single (and insufficient) source it provides. ◄Zahakiel► 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect/delete - maybe some of this content could be merged with an online dating service article... or have the external link/reference put into that article... then redirect/delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just put the reference into the online dating service article making this truly redundant.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty obvious OR. WJBscribe's comments are spot on. Pax:Vobiscum 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Inaproppriate article failing WP:NOT, seems like the article is just being used as a site for a future rude website (by the headings).Tellyaddict 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it appears to be a recreation of an already AFD'd List of cliches in personal ads (or something very similar to that title). I'll see if I can dig up the deletion log from last time. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, here's the previous AFD I mentioned. It's not created by the same author, so it's probably going to have to be a new AFD... but this is relevant due to the fact that the bulk of the text here appears to be exactly the same. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:36, 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 John Reaves (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of baseball nicknames, List of sportspeople by nickname, List of hockey nicknames. List of basketball nicknames, List of baseball nicknames

List of baseball nicknames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research with no references or citations to verify any of the nicknames mentioned in the list. Also, it doesn't clarify how often a nickname has to be used in order for it to be considered an official nickname. TBCΦtalk? 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm also nominating the following:
  • List of sportspeople by nickname
  • List of hockey nicknames
  • List of basketball nicknames
  • List of baseball nicknames--TBCΦtalk? 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete OR, NN, and really just plain NOT belonging here. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge verified nicknames into the respective team articles, if not already done so. UnfriendlyFire 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not inherently original research, I've certainly seen/read a lot of these nicknames used in legitimate publications. There's no requirement that every claim on Wikipedia be backed up with an inline citation or we delete the article... some of these are just obvious, like "The Tribe" for Cleveland Indians "The Bronx Bombers" for the Yankees. Useful and interesting lists for sports fans. If some of the nicknames are original research, that's a reason to improve the articles, not delete them. --W.marsh 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a requirement on Wikipedia for citations. See WP:ATT. Also, I strongly disagree that "sports fans might like it" is a reason for keeping these articles.--TBCΦtalk? 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is not a requirement that every line in an article have an inline citation this very minute. Never has been, never will be. It needs to be reasonably shown that sources do exist, that's the thing. If you think the Cleveland Indians have never been called "The Tribe" in print, for example, you obviously know very little about baseball [1] --W.marsh 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There is a requirement for citations if the content might be considered dubious. Regardless, the article also has numerous POV issues, as it doesn't clarify how much a nickname has to be used in order for its inclusion into the list.--TBCΦtalk? 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Luckily, there's an easy solution for that, we can just say "notable nicknames" and then follow the guidelines per WP:NOTABLE on any that are controversial. That takes care of any theoretical POV issues. --JayHenry 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The List of baseball nicknames, much of it seems to fail WP:ATT and WP:MADEUP. "The Tribe" sure, but stuff like "Sox Suxs" "Asstros" "Pond Scum" "Filthy Rich Dankees"? Do you think this stuff would appear in a reputable source? Neutral on the others, if they could have references added, they could be pretty good articles Citicat 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So remove the ones that are inaccurate? What is it with people wanting to delete an entire list lately just because a few items are incorrect... it's not much different than deleting articles because a few claims have {{fact}} tags next to them. --W.marsh 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't think there would be enough left over to make a worthwhile article. While might be a good article would be a list of major league baseball franchises, that could list prior team names and cities as well as nicknames. Citicat 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kntrabssi 01:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah that could be used as justification to delete absolutely anything though... Bill Clinton, Outer space, Russia... those are pretty random topics! We can't collect them indiscriminately, can we? Is there any specific problem with this information other than the fact that you apparently don't like it? --W.marsh 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all per WP:AFD-IS-NOT_WP:CLEANUP. Remove the inaccurate or controversial names; build a better encyclopedia instead of eradicating the less-than-perfect articles. - Neier 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 'The article also has numerous POV issues, not just clean up ones. For example, how many times does a nickname have to be used in order for it to be considered an official nickname? Five times? A hundred? A thousand? --TBCΦtalk? 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • POV issues aern't a reason to delete, either. If you can turn on the radio/TV coverage of a baseball game and the announcers are using the nicknames without need for explanation (Big Red Machine, Tribe, Bronx Bombers, etc.) that's a pretty established nickname. There's no reason to suspect the article couldn't cover such information reliably. --W.marsh 03:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Though I admit that not all POV issues are a reason to delete, inherently POV issues—such as in this case—are. Also, the article doesn't establish how many times must a nickname be used by TV/radio announcers in order for it to be considered an official nickname. After all, there are countless people in mainstream media who have made up neologisms to describe teams, and Wikipedia is certaintly not the place to indiscriminately record all of them. --TBCΦtalk? 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm just talking about turning on a random radio/tv broadcast. There are certain nicknames recognizable to baseball fans. Maybe this is something you actually have to follow sports to understand, I dunno. But there's a difference between established nicknames and the silly stuff sports columnists make up as filler and is forgotten quickly. It's not really an inherent POV issue, it just involves needing to improve the article. Everything you've said boils down to a need to improve the article, not a reason to delete it. --W.marsh 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • But the thing is, since it's entirely subjective, there's no way for us to determine how popular a neologism needs to be in order for it to be considered an actual nickname instead of, as you put it, "silly stuff sports columnists make up". As such, by all means these lists are inherently POV.--TBCΦtalk? 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As to how many times something has to be used. It has to be used by multiple, verifible, reliable sources. If that critereon can be met for some of this set, I see no reason to delete this, only to clean it up. Wintermut3 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I'm not following the reasoning that suggests it's entirely or inherently subjective. Some nicknames are adopted by the teams (see http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/cin/history/timeline3.jsp for one use of "Big Red Machine" on the team's home page), and the existence of just one such case should be enough to show that it is not a 100% subjective argument. Neier 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Strong Keep big difference between unverified and unverifiable. These lists need to be tagged for needing references, and from there a little clean-up and attention will do the trick. --JayHenry 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete as unencyclopaedic/trivial information. incorporate into each article, create a template entry for nickname. /Blaxthos 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like you are advocating the incorporation of "unencyclopaedic/trivial information" in articles? Doesn't that seem hypocritical? Neier 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. Having an article of a list of nicknames is unencyclopaedic and trivial. Incorporating those nicknames into articles is useful (when referenced) -- we just don't need a indiscriminant and unverified list. /Blaxthos 18:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As seen below, parts of the lists are already verified. As for indiscriminant, is there some other way that you would classify or list baseball teams besides the 32 MLB teams which would make it more discriminant? It seems that indiscriminant is too often used as anything that I think is useless in AFD discussions. Neier 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is failing WP:NOT#IINFO as its just totally irrelevant information.Tellyaddict 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's very relevant information. Sports journalists constantly refer to teams and players by their nicknames. Also, for people who keep saying "indiscriminate" I gently encourage you to actually look up the meaning of the word "indiscriminate" in a dictionary. These lists are not it. These lists pass WP:LIST, for 1) information and 2) navigation. The lists are easily verifiable and also notable as these nicknames are in constant use in sports journalism. If you want to redefine Wikipedia's policy on lists, AFD is not the place for it. --JayHenry 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • These articles are a lyrics database? They're travel guides? That's the only kind of things the page you've mentioned says are not to be included... and the articles in question clearly aren't any of those 8 things. People should really read these things before citing them. --W.marsh 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've been going through the baseball article and adding references. There are about 20 now. I have to get back to real life, but I want to say, these nicknames are incredibly common. It's almost hard to find references because, for example, "Los Angeles" "Halos" returns over 1,000,000 hits on google, almost all of which are about the baseball team. Some of these nicknames even have books written about them -- about the actual nickname. There's an entire book about why the Dodgers are called the Boys of Summer. Also, I'm finding tons of non-trivial references such as "ESPN's List of Best Baseball Nicknames of All Time." As I do further research in this topic -- I'm not even interested in sports -- it's instantly obvious that sports nicknames are an integral part of sports culture and I'm changing my original vote to strong keep, and if not for the handful of delete votes, I'd change to speedy. These are blatantly valid lists. --JayHenry 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Here's an academic paper on Baseball nicknames: Gmelch, George, "What's in a Baseball Nickname", NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture Volume 14, Number 2, Spring 2006, pp. 129-132. [2]
  • Baseball almanac's list of hall of famers and their nicknames: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofnick.shtml
  • Baseball Nicknames: A Dictionary of Origins and Meanings (Hardcover), by James K. Skipper, [3]
  • Historical paper on Baseball nicknames: Nicknames of Baseball Clubs, Joseph Curtin Gephart, American Speech, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 1941), pp. 100-103 [4]
  • And honestly, I'll add these as I have the time. --JayHenry 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The nicknames should be only found in the articles that's it. --JForget 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Valuable indexes to information on Wikipedia. Fg2 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep weed out OR ones - valualbe index Mayumashu 02:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very valuable information. Nevertheless, we could add a requirement for references, a la List of entertainers by nickname. Mrbluesky 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very valuable information, esp for people who know the nickname but not the real name. Otherwise, delete all lists of nicknames, pseudonyms, & the like (which I strong oppose, btw...). Trekphiler 09:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Get rid of the unproven nicknames, but keep the rest. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not original research, but rather an issue of missing sources. The addition of multiple sources here shows this to be the case. -- Black Falcon 19:54, 19 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 08:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors who play characters with the same names

List of actors who play characters with the same names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a mixture of;

• characters who are fictionalized/comedy versions of the actors playing them (Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc)
• characters who are clearly named after the star of the show (Cybil, Roseanne, etc), which is a long-running tradition in sitcoms
• characters who coincidentally happen to have the same first name (or last name... or middle name) as the actor playing them (Jack Nicholson in The Shining, etc)
• characters' names that sound a little bit like the actors who are playing them, if you are hard of hearing, (Jackson Stewart played by Jason Earles, Jenna Rink played by Jennifer Garner, etc)

Mildly interesting trivia, but no real connection between all the items on this list, and no encyclopedic value. Saikokira 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Interesting perhaps, but as the nom mentioned, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Saikokira's very impressive points. Noroton 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and could Saikokira please write my next AFD? -- Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I could understand if it were different actors who played the same character, but as a movie fanatic, it seems pointless. Mghabmw 09:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --MonkeyTimeBoy 14:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The list does not live up to the title. There is not one actor on this list who plays a figure with the same full name, other than characters from shows that are named after their main actor or cases where only the first or last name matches. This is a bad indiscriminate collection of information.--DorisH 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all of this is just trivial info...--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not necessary to throw a long and interminable list like that, categories maybe would be better suited.--JForget 00:09, 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. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xtreme Hockey League

Xtreme Hockey League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Utterly non-notable simulated hockey league. Also, take note of abusive nature of page's creator. Skudrafan1 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Xtreme delete as Wikipedia is not for hockey leagues made up in school one day, regardless of how "xtreme" they are. (and yes, I did steal the "xtreme delete" thing from JzG) --TBCΦtalk? 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It's not notable.. Come on, it's a sim league! --Deenoe 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• This edit says, "since obviously some people dont recognize this as a SIM hockey league and NOT real league and some of us are trying to have a little bit of fun, I have come to the conclussion that some of you have no life at all and have no sense of humor. That being said whoever is behind this proposed deletion can kiss my ass." OK, I have no life and no sense of humor, so I'm puckering up. Speedy delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Xtreme delete to the Max yo! per TBC's comments above. --Haemo 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, sim hockey rocks.... xtreme dude. DMighton 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above and per WP:ATTACK. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as everyone has said already. Kaiser matias 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because I live in Greensboro and cannot find any tickets to the Swordsman's playoff games. Said something about I cannot get them because I don't live in the SIM world. If you want to have some fun, create your own website, but this is an encyclopedia, and this page does not belong. Pparazorback 02:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN league. I do like sim hockey however. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete like totally, yo. Also someone should look at HFboards. JuJube 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per this little nugget at the end of the article: "since obviously some people dont recognize this as a SIM hockey league and NOT real league and some of us are trying to have a little bit of fun, I have come to the conclussion that some of you have no life at all and have no sense of humor. That being said whoever is behind this proposed deletion can kiss my ass." Thunderbunny 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, somebody already noted it. Thunderbunny 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If this is a SIM hockey league and not a real one, it can have an article in a SIM encyclopedia and not a real one. --Metropolitan90 04:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If we don't delete this, I'm creating an article about my fantasy football league. SkipSmith 05:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah? Well I'll do you one better - consider List of Ambidextrious and Bisexual Self-Referential Athletes in SkipSmith's Fantasy League already under construction. --Action Jackson IV 06:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - A7 with a dash (an Xtreme dash, might I add) of G1. --Action Jackson IV 06:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete - Alright look. This is a sim league. It's not real, ok? This was something we were doing to have a little fun. It doesn't link to any real sites or real people, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's just a little fun, innocent thing we did that isn't hurting anyone. Why someone would even take the time to get so upset about something as trivial as this is beyond me and why you would even be LOOKING at this in the first place makes me wonder how much you have going on in your life. Anyway, bottom line is this article isnt hurting anyone and nobody can even see it unless they know what they are looking for...so who cares? And as a side note...even if it gets deleted, guess what? We got our page up on wikipedia for nearly a week and got exposure for it from people with no lives. Success! And as a response to the "someone should look at HFBoards" part...THAT is a real site. Leave it alone.— Danno2530 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • People on Wikipedia are like this when it comes to deleting articles that do not cite reliable sources, and meet the encyclopedia's standards for notability. I don't like the sarcastic tone that some people in this deletion discussion have used though, such as "XTreme Delete Dude!" - that's bordering on a personal attack and is not constructive or helpful.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is an encyclopedia. If you want to make a wiki about your league, fine: do it on wikispaces or pbwiki. Leave the real encyclopedia for articles about real leagues. As for the personal attacks: yes, I don't agree with the sarcastic deletion votes people are putting in, but I also don't agree with being repeatedly told I have no life because I want a pointless article about a meaningless league removed from Wikipedia. Skudrafan1 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• ninja style backflip delete with a double-allie (or however you spell it). /Blaxthos 10:05, 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 a mess resulting in no consensus. Individual nominations might be better, potential merges or redirecting is left to editorial discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) –

List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command was nominated for deletion but received no attention other than a suggestion to merge into this article. As I don't see how either list is encyclopaedic I'm relisting and expanding the nomination to include this list as well. Delete. Verification with reference to reliable sources is non-negotiable regardless of opinion here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding:

List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

to which the above seems to apply equally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original nomination for List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command

Non-notable stub as it is now, replicates only some of the information available at List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command Buckshot06 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) •

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Transfer anything not already in List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command and delete, as this is not a likely search term. Alba 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued nomination below

Please let me add some context to this set of pages. Some should not be deleted, as they are subpages of Strategic Air Command wings, which user:R. E. Mixer spent a great deal of time and effort on (he formerly served with SAC and has written books on the subject) while others are mistaken repeat pages and can be safely culled. List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigneed to Strategic Air Command, List of USAF Strategic Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command, and List of USAF Air Refueling Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command can all be safely deleted, as they replicate single portions of List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, which is notable itself. List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command and List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command can also both be deleted, because they deal with a single year`s history where the 321st Strategic Missile Wing was redesignated the 321st Missile Wing in 1990-91, but the main page for intercontinental missile (ICBM) wings, the List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command should not be deleted as it deals with all these organisations` history for nearly fifty years.

Buckshot06 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the verification for these articles, even before we consider any of that? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Mixer served inside this organisation, and wrote three books on it - see the bibliography on Strategic Air Command of about six months ago under M. On the web it is not complete, but do a google search for USAF lineage and you will get official sites replicating most of this. I am remote from my primary/secondary sources, but Air Force magazine, the magazine of the Air Force Association, does a yearly issue with the entire wiring diagram for the USAF. I've seen numerous 1990s (and earlier copies), mainly in New Zealand, but it will be able to be accessed elsewhere. Finally if you want a web general background look at the USAF organisation page at globalsecurity.org and at the Federation of American Scientists, FAS. Buckshot06 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• questions Following Buckshot06's comments: Does this have to be a (big, confusing) AfD? Could not someone BE BOLD and aggregate the information in a minimal number of pages and turn the others into redirects? If that works to the satisfaction of Buckshot06 & R. E. Mixer, then is there a problem? Cannot R. E. Mixer's books serve as reliable sources? Pete.Hurd 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• speedy close as malformed, confusing AFD. Obviously, with three listings having now occured and few/any comments (which, I assume, is due to it's complexity), this needs to be represented in an understandable form. /Blaxthos 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Am proceeding in line with user Pete Hurd's suggestions. Buckshot06 17:21, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:17Z

[edit] Sexile

Sexile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure if this warrants more than a wiktionary redirect Tejastheory 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism and a dicdef. --TBCΦtalk? 01:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kntrabssi 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, I'm suprised this even made it in Wiktionary. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, plus Wikitionary already has a definition on it, redundant to be here. Wooyi 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as dictionary definition. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree this is just a definition and belongs in Wiktionary, but feel obligated to point out it's not a neologism. Other than the references from the article, here's a published reference from 2004. Kevinsam 07:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at that source as well, although it's not exactly an authoritative source: just a 'sex columnist' student writing on the subject. Tejastheory 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. While the term is clearly widely used and not all that new, no academic I can find has bothered to write about it yet... Kevinsam 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• As a strong inclusionist I'd like to be able to say keep, but ultimately this is the sort of thing that belongs in Urban Dictionary and, at best, Wiktionary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and add to WP:BJAODN Al-Bargit 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note the deletion log, it's been inappropriately speedied twice. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:10, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of sports clichés

List of sports clichés (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research with no sources or references to verify any of the claims made in the article. The article also has numerous POV issues, as it doesn't explain how many times a phrase has to be used in a sport in order for it to be considered a "cliché". TBCΦtalk? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Weak Delete No inclusion criteria, no sources, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It has sources now and google shows it is not really indiscriminate, but still needs explicit inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If an article can be fixed, then AfD is not the route to go. See WP:Deletion policy, where it says: Problem with page ... [Item:] Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations) I see this under "Solution:" Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. A list of sports cliches can be put together without being WP:OR as long as sources are cited saying "such and such is a sports cliche" and the citation could be disputed with a simple Google search or Google News search showing that the cliche isn't repeated as much as one would think a sports cliche would be. Inclusion criteria is simple: Is it a cliche used in sports topics? Yes or no, in or out. I don't know what is meant by POV in a list like this. Noroton 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (added to my comment Noroton 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
  • The article doesn't only have cleanup issues, but POV issues as well. Determining which phrases are cliches is entirely subjective. After all, how many times must a phrase be used in order for it to be considered a "cliche"? Five times? One hundred times? One thousand times?--TBCΦtalk? 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

TBC, you're not getting what I'm saying: those ghits I link to in my comment below are what someone identified as sports cliches. Get a respectable source, cite the respectable source, build your list The Wikipedia Way. I just went down that link a little bit and found "Best Sports Cliches Ever! (Paperback) by Don R. Powell" over at Amazon.com. It's got blurbs from Sports Illustrated and ESPN Magazine. If you disagree with what Mr. Donald Rasputinovich Powell or some other respectable source has to say, the burden's on you to prove him wrong, it seems to me. That's where a small number of Google hits may help, although no, I don't know how small. Anyway, you don't really have to decide, you just have to cite respectable sources.Noroton 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I see 29,000 ghits for "sports cliches" here. Without going further, I think it's pretty clear there are adequate sources out there. Noroton 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. Indiscriminate collection of information. Arkyan 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per WP:NOT. /Blaxthos 09:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn cruft. Gandoman 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I completely reworked this page. Every cliche has a ref, and the page has multiple refs, so notability for each cliche, and the page itself is established. The OR is removed, and as for how many times makes a cliche, that's up to the reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Great work Peregrine! Noroton 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:NOTABILITY, multiple non-trivial sources to establish notability, compliant with WP:ATT, WP:NOT#PAPER. --Matthew
• Keep. The article was completely rewritten a few hours ago.--DorisH 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nowt wrong with this article now. I might even add a few myself. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I was going to put keep, but then I looked up List of sports idioms and English language idioms derived from baseball and these seem more than adequate. Mghabmw 06:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Beyond fixing.--74.104.224.214 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not all idioms have become cliched. Also recommend discarding the delete votes prior to the massive re-write. Neier 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because lists like these are convenient and fascinating to sports fans and casual readers alike! :) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP There are TONS of lists on Wikipedia. If it's to be encyclopedic, it should be here. Just figure out how to get a workable list
• Delete it with 110% effort one day at a time. Bucketsofg 04:43, 19 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) 2007-03-18 08:18Z

[edit] List of scream queens

List of scream queens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of Scream Queens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Inherently POV/original research. Introduction states a scream queen is "an actress who has become closely associated with horror films." "Closely associated" in whose opinion? The editors who added the actresses names to this list? The general public? And exactly how many horror films does an actress have to appear in before she is closely associated with them?

Apparently Paris Hilton, Julianne Moore,Katie Rosales and Joan Collins are all "closely associated with horror films." Really?! That just shows how this list will always suffer from POV issues. Just because Scream queen is a notable topic does not necessarily mean that a list of scream queens should also exist. Saikokira 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per POV problems, and lack of inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Delete (see my comments below) the way to deal with Saikokira's questions and objections is the way Wikipedia generally lets us deal with POV: report what responsible sources say. A list of scream queens could be made from among the 1,030 references found here. Since a list can be made, deletion is inappropriate, at least not until after other solutions have been tried (so says Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Noroton 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm changing to delete. After I wrote the comment above, which I still think is correct in general, I looked at the history of the article: Started 13 December 2005, poor-citation tag slapped on since 26 February 2006, number of citations made since then, ZERO. Attempting to get the contributing editors to cite sources has failed, and nominating for deletion is the proper next step. If the editors who have been adding to the list ever since February of '06 can't get their act together enough to find the sources, then it's time to light a fire under them or throw their article onto the trash heap. No sources, no article. Noroton 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete original research/WP:NOT a list. /Blaxthos 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently subjective and not very useful. --Lockley 20:20, 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 Merge to Fantastic art. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:19Z

[edit] Fantasy painting

Fantasy painting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page lacks substantive information. It appears to be some unreferenced rambles on the topic. And we already have Fantastic art. Goldfritha 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree that article is more or less incoherent and that subject matter duplicates Fantastic art. In addition, there still seems some problems with copyright for the images—the Tanguy painting on the page, for instance, is less than 70 years old. Deor 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per deor. /Blaxthos 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with fantastic art for the time being. FWIW, I suspect that fantasy painting could support a separate article from fantastic art; when I see fantasy painting, I think instead of "paintings made to illustrate fantasy literature", like Boris Vallejo, Frank Frazetta, Julie Bell, and so forth. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's an existing article about "paintings made to illustrate fantasy literature" at Fantasy art. Deor 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, perhaps a disambiguation is needed. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per above.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and while the images are nice, this is little more than an image gallery article. --Dennisthe2 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No article content.--ZayZayEM 03:11, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:21Z

[edit] Medical slang

Medical slang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DICT Kntrabssi 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Keep, with complete rewrite. Liking the work of this so far, but every jargon word should have a reference to accompany it. Looks good guys! Kntrabssi 02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete change to STRONG KEEP (for reason, see comment below Uncle G's comment below) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Noroton 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. For reasons mentioned above. Besides, article has no sources. --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete sources/WP:NOT /Blaxthos 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. Real96 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Keep, but rewrite There are sources, for sure, see [5] for example. I'm sure there are others. But my vote is based on the fact that WP is not a dictionary. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Update upon rethinking. The phenomenon of Medical slang is real. WP having an article about it, maybe citing an example or two, but more discussing it's existence, how it is viewed by the medical profession, etc., could be notable and appropriate for WP. If the long lists were taken out, and some references added, this could be a good article. So keep, based on just removing the lists. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The current version of this article is a list of swear-words. Unreferenced on top of that. The fact that professional slang per se exists should be discussed in slang. So maybe merge the descriptive part into slang. If the lists are kept, I think every single expression should be referenced and it should be indicated what country it is used in.--DorisH 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • All of that is solvable by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, and does not require an administrator to use any administrator tools. Editors should have the boldness to excise unverifiable dictionaries of slang and write proper articles themselves. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G 12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• I added the citation for Fox et al. to this article back in September 2006. There is an encyclopaedia article to be had on this subject, but the actual encyclopaedia content has been overshadowed by the collection of original research, the vast dictionary of slang, that the article itself made excuses for not complying with our Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary content policies. As demonstrated, fixing the problems with this article requires nothing more than the simple use of ordinary editing tools by ordinary editors to hold it to our content policies. Sources on the subject exist. AFD is not cleanup. Keep. Uncle G 12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, Uncle G, you changed my vote. This is exactly what we should be doing with articles, preferrably before they're put up for AfD nomination, but if necessary, after. Noroton 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • If we could have references of usage for all of these slang terms, I would uggest keeping it, but at the moment this is all original research and a list of slang, which violates What Wikipedia is Not. Kntrabssi 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. this article has the right idea. It appears to be about medical slang, not an indiscriminate list. Good job lads. requires clean up and TLC, not deletion.--ZayZayEM 03:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G and due to rewrite. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 07:29, 18 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack_Yan

Jack_Yan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity page, not noteable, not written in a neutral point of view, references minor and rubbish, content is nonsense Randomkiwi 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough. POV seems pretty much neutral, and NPOV is not criteria for deletion, but more for rewriting. Kntrabssi 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't agree that POV is neutral, and suggest a clear COI between the original article author and the subject. Article claims subject had a "distinguished academic history" at primary and secondary schools--no reference to distinction. Acquisition of two university degrees does not constitute distinction.

Article claims subject is a "distant relative" of other notable people, with no references. Claims he has an interest in politics, but no evidence of any notability in this area, other than a planned speech to a minor party not represented in Parliament. Books listed include a book he may be a contributor to, but I can't find any evidence of this. References cited are not independent, reliable sources, or mainly appear to mention him only in passing. His IMDB profile lists a few appearances on New Zealand television. Google hits do come up with a large response, but almost entirely are from his own publishing company and mirrors. Randomkiwi 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Cleanup and remove claims not supported by sources. /Blaxthos 09:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has several sources and seems relatively notabe. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. I had been editing the page and removing POV, and perhaps my efforts have not been comprehensive enough. Naturally, I am happy to be guided by fellow editors as suggested at Wikipedia: I'm happy to modify anything that can't be independently verified. I will begin cleanup now based on points raised.

Answering Randomkiwi's points: the "distant relative" claim is in a source but I cannot enter the foreign characters (Chinese). Maybe a Chinese editor can assist if I scanned the book. All the books that he wrote are in the National Library of New Zealand's records, other than the one published in the UK. (You may know that New Zealand publishers are not as good at getting titles on to Amazon and are, consequently, less visible. I do not think this to be a reason to limit New Zealanders' titles.) His work on the British book can be easily found at Amazon UK. On your point about politics, you failed to mention that he had founded a now-defunct political party, which is listed in Wikipedia.

If Googling, I suggest doing -site commands on his own sites: I still managed 109,000 references, but I could not locate mirrors. Next to Raybon Kan, he is probably the most visible male Chinese New Zealander in the country.

Of the footnoted references, he wrote two. I have removed the references where Jack Yan was cited as the author. I disagree that the other references (CNN, The Daily Telegraph) are minor and he would not have been approached if he were not notable. Some other sources have since been added, but I disagree that the ones that were there were unreliable.

I believe the subject is one of the better known brand strategists in New Zealand, was the first digital typeface designer in New Zealand (easily more notable than some in that profession who are in Wikipedia: if he is removed, then quite a few others would have to as well). I trust the above answers your concerns.—Stombs 11:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Cleaned up page features sources from notable media

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 somewhere. Prodego ^talk 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of worlds in Kya: Dark Lineage

List of worlds in Kya: Dark Lineage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research & video game cruft. Poorly-written article appears to have been created by someone playing this game and adding their observations to Wikipedia. I am nominating 2 other related articles for the same reasons:

List of items in Kya: Dark Lineage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of characters in Kya: Dark Lineage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Saikokira 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete per nom. /Blaxthos 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Don't forget to nuke all the thirty or so fair use images too. MER-C 10:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any possible useful content if there is any, then delete/redirect. The article - and I'm not being sarcastic here - reads as though it was written by a child.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First off i think i fixed the list of characters, second i took the pictures with my own camera and tv and video game of kya, i never intended it to make it sound like a game guide and have gotten rid of it on the list of characters, do you guys even like kya? because you could help fix it too-hotspot

• Comment. It should be noted that Hotspot, the article's creator, has vandalized this AfD by altering MER-C's comments to make them less critical [6]. I have now replaced them. Saikokira 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge after condensing into a list and removing the huge amount of images into respective umbrella pages. As it is right now, it doesn't warrent its own article and it does seem too much like a guide. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All While Kya: Dark Lineage was an excellent game, a list of the various items and locations in the game isn't really warranted. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing mercs post was an accident i didn't mean to do that, and how is it vandalism to say something about the article that is not vandalism it is disscussing with you. and also i took time out of my life to take pictures jus t for kya and you guys are trying to get rid of the pictures, and also what is the problem with list of worlds in kya dark lineage? can we atleast keep the worlds of kya dark lineage i think that it is the best article that i made out of the three-hotspot

• Comment. Deleting someone's critical comments in an AfD and replacing them with your own is considered vandalism. And if you want to add your own comments in this AfD then place them underneath the previous comments, as you would do on a talk page. This is the second time I have had to fix them. Saikokira 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• For some reason i thought the new edits were up i don't know why but that's what i thought, I think we should delete the items list and add a few items to the main article, but only the most important items like kya's boomy, today i will be fixing up the worlds in kya dark lineage.-hotspot

• Merge with Kya: Dark Lineage, after deleting game guide information, to create a proper 'setting' section. --User:Krator (t c) 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all into List of characters, places, and items in Kya: Dark Lineage per WP:FICT point 2, which allows the existence of such lists if they get too long. Alternatively, a selective merge into Kya: Dark Lineage can be performed as none of the 3 articles or the main one is particularly long. If the consensus is to merge, I am willing to perform the merge to the appropriate target. Just please leave me note on my talk page. Thanks, Black Falcon 19:59, 19 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:22Z

[edit] Haven Middle School

Haven Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. I put this one up for speedy, but another user asked me to put it on AfD. Not even the smallest claim of notability. (They do teach math, though) --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, No sign that the subject meets any inclusion guideline. However, I hear they have great fish sticks. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this two-day-old article. Give the creator time, and don't bite the newbies. Noroton 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Keep per WP:A and WP:N. Notepad and /sandbox are for developing articles. Wikipedia is for stubs and up. Revised and much expanded version remains routine and nonnotable IMHO except as far as the architecture is concerned, but I think it's a keeper on that basis. Still, nobody will complain about school sub-stubs at http://myschool.wikia.com. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: this entry has as much, if not more, notability than other schools on here and is referenced. All i can see wrong with it is the fact it is ugly and poorly written, which is easily fixed. Jonomacdrones 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has innovative science programs, and has been a shooting location for several major motion pictures. Found several reference. Edison 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sure needs some work but several notable features. The Business and Science initiatives are unusual for a middle school and interesting, as is the film set - someone viewing the film may well want to find out about the school. Plenty of scope for expansion. TerriersFan 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article makes explicit claims of notability, using reliable and verifiable spurces to establish notability. Alansohn 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It seems that the articles been improved since originally nominated, since it's starting to look pretty good now. --Maelwys 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn and Jonomacdrones. Explicit claims to notability are made, so any attempt to speedy delete this was completely unfounded. Yamaguchi先生 05:47, 18 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 08:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber prima

Cyber prima (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

We don't need an article on every Yu-Gi-Oh card ever produced. As a standalone entity, it isn't notable (WP:N) and is rather crufty. Crystallina 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (cruft/WP:N) /Blaxthos 09:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - almost incomprehensible, nobody cares. MER-C 10:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - incoherent, non-NPOV and unattributed.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No claim to notability. Stebbins 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Completely non notable --Maelwys 13:10, 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. Just because other pages violate notability criteria does not give this page a free pass to. Put those pages on AfD as well. Prodego ^talk 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Anime Convention

Another Anime Convention (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. No reliable independent third-party sources provided or found to indicate notability. Only sources that can be found are the convention's website, its press release, and its listing on AnimeCons.com's directory, which aren't enough to even come close to passing WP:ORG. --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Anime Convention — result: Delete

• Strong Keep - Your argument would also mean that Ai-Kon, AVCon, Animaritime, Animazement, Anime Banzai, Anime Detour, Anime Evolution, Anime Festival Wichita, Anime Mid-Atlantic, Anime_NebrasKon, Anime Punch!, Anime USA, Anime Vegas, AnimeFest, AnimeNEXT, should all be deleted (there are more!). Notability is not a policy on Wikipedia, but it is only a Guideline, and although guidelines are important, they have their exceptions. Deleting this article, and the similar articles I mentioned are against the spirit (and policies!) of Wikipedia! The information is attributed, and with that sort of information you should, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Furthermore, wikipedia is not paper and there is no practical limit to the amount of information we can have here. The information contained in this article is useful to several people, people looking for encyclopedic, reliable information about anime conventionss, Anime, or more. Kopf1988 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I forgot to mention that Another Anime Convention is the largest anime convention in New Hampshire. Should that make it a little more notable?? Kopf1988 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete then, delete now - completely non-notable new convention. MikeWazowski 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the Anime and manga deletion discussions.

You seem to have missed my point. Click on each of those convention links, and tell me how they're notable please? Absolutely none of them at the time of my post had ANY sources to satisfy notability. It is a completely ridiculous idea to think that this article, and by extension all those others, should be deleted from Wikipedia! whatever you do, try to preserve information.Kopf1988 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep mentioning that you want to "try to preserve information" and link to Wikipedia:Editing policy. Maybe you should look at WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING and WP:ALLORNOTHING for a clearer view on "preserving" everything. --PatrickD 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, my reference towards preserving information was to a Wikipedia Policy, while you mention only an Essay! Yes, it is true that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but the information here is useful, verified, and more than just a phone-book directory listing. Kopf1988 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The "preserve information" bit means that if part of an article is bad, the good parts should be kept. If the subject itself is not article-worthy, that doesn't really apply. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one interpretation, however I see it as information should be preserved in general, including topics too. Kopf1988 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That philosophy will only lead to cruft. We need to make editorial decisions as to what information is relevant and should be kept and what is simply trivial and unimportant. And if the only reliable sources you can provided is to prove that the convention exists, then its trivial information. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Why should this article be an exception to the guideline? There is a criteria for listing Anime conventions as outlined by the Conventions work group. One of which is meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). How about citing an article from the local New Hampshire newspaper about the event? A listing on AnimeCons.com isn't enough. --Squilibob 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Look closely at all the other Anime Convention links I provided (or randomly select a couple!) NONE of them have anything more than AnimeCons.com and the official website to claim notability. Are you telling me that these should all be deleted? Anime Conventions are rarely covered by news media, and they are a fairly new thing. Another Anime Convention has more references than OVER HALF of the articles in the anime conventions category. Kopf1988 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, some cons are missing references, but those aren't being nominated for deletion because -- at least for most of them -- people feel that we can find some reliable sources if we actually sit down and look. (We have been slowly plugging through the con articles adding references, but it takes time.) If you want to nominate them for deletion, nobody's stopping you. ...but I really don't think an AfD on AnimeNEXT (one of your examples) would get far considering it's the 10th largest con in the US and is fairly well known and has received a lot of press coverage. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to keep an article. This AfD is about Another Anime Convention, not some other articles. --PatrickD 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"(We have been slowly plugging through the con articles adding references, but it takes time.)" Again, you missed my main point, and it isn't that other stuff exists, but it is that this article is more referenced than half the stuff that I mentioned! It hasn't got much coverage yet because its new, but it's still in pretty good shape. Kopf1988 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the references, however, are not from reliable sources. And the ones that are do are actually directory listings and do not confer notability to the convention. As for pointing out that other convention articles have sourcing problems of their own, you are comparing apples and oranges. Most of those articles have several reliable sources available, but they go cited in the articles. But as for AAC, such reliable sources don't exist to begin with outside of the directory/event listings, such as AnimeCons.com. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:N /Blaxthos 09:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I attended the convention, I enjoyed the convention, I made new friends at the convention, and I am looking forward to returning to the convention this year...but in no way, shape, or form does it satisfy WP:CORP. --PatrickD 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, I noticed you arguing that it would not be fair to "not list an event just because it hasn't happened yet". Wouldn't those conventions be even more non-notable? For reference, I'm referring to your edit to Talk:List of anime conventions at 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC). Kopf1988 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That was something I said in December 2005. I no longer feel that way. It goes against WP:CRYSTAL...and that's not relevant to this AfD anyway since this convention HAS happened. I'm not sure why you even bothered to bring it up. --PatrickD 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Much as I'd like to see this article cleaned up and preserved, I cannot agree to even a weak keep, for a number of reasons.

1. The Primary Notability Criterion states, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." The article in question fails the second half of that sentence. Anime-Cons.com is merely a repository of information from press releases and other data that comes directly from the Convention committees. As such, the information there is not independent from the subject.
2. The other references provided within the article do not satisfy "non-trivial" mentions. The Anime-Mania.net listing is a mere list of upcoming conventions, The AnimeNewsNetwork article is a copy of a press release which is not independent, and the oasismag.com article is a blog entry of one person's account of the convention, without any assertion of press credential.
3. The article does not contain any information that is not duplicated on the Convention's website, or on AnimeCons.com. What is the encyclopedic purpose of having an article on Wikipedia if it's just a mirror of other reference materials?
4. And on the subject of "Notability is not policy," guidelines can and more often than not do result in better articles than this one being deleted. In fact the only difference between a policy and a guideline is that the policy is less likely to have exceptions. You have not proven that this article needs an exception.

The best solution that I see is to have the convention contact a number of local newspapers and television stations, give out a few press passes, have them write articles on the convention, and THEN and ONLY THEN, will you have the information to write an article on -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason I would say that this article should be an exception is because it is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire. That seems pretty notable. Kopf1988 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

...but apparently it wasn't notable enough for Mikkakan, NH's first anime con and the largest in New England until Anime Boston came along. --PatrickD 03:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm saying that the people who suggested deleting that article were wrong. Kopf1988 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. If Notability is "generally permanent", then Mikkakan will always have the distinction of being the first con in its state (New Hampshire), and the first New England con (as it claims) to have an invited industry guest, even if surpassed in attendance in the New England region by Anime Boston, and now by the convention which is the subject of this very article. The former reason was enough for keeping No Brand Con. I would like to repeat the idea of merging the old Mikkakan articles and this one if a deletion seems likely. ~ SeanOrange 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's a good plan if possible, although I hope this article isn't deleted... it seems so much easier these days to delete information than to add it on WP. Kopf1988 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is the largest in the area does not excuse the article from not having the required sources. If the article for Anime Expo didn't have any secondary sources, it would be deleted too. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I still like to see an independent, non-trivial, reliable source stating that. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go, they have been added.(View Diff) Kopf1988 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Your sources are mostly blogs and/or trivial mentions in directories or listings. They hardly confer any notability on the event - only show that it happened, which is not notable in and of itself. Please read the guidelines on what kinds of sources are required. Nothing you've added has changed my original opinion that this is a non-notable event at this time, and my original recommendation stands. MikeWazowski 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I'm not sure which part of this discussion you are commenting about. My statement that they have been added is referring to This Edit, in reply to Farix's request for independent, non-trivial, reliable sources stating that. That referred all the way back to my assertion that AAC is the largest anime convention in the state. Kopf1988 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The like you provided (as shown in that diff, may be from an independent source - however, it's definitely a trivial mention, as it's only a listing that the convention takes place, and likely taken directly from information provided by the convention itself. The page you link to does not make the claim, as you state, that the convention is the largest one in the state - it is merely a listing of conventions, and your assertion is your own opinion based on information found on that page, and therefore original research, which should not be used. In any event, both this link and this link from that page are definitely trivial mentions, and do not confer any notability or independent editorial opinion about the event in question. The claim on the convention's own website is puffery, and also should not be used without verification by legitimate sources. Either way, it's a non-issue, as I do not believ the article will survive this AfD - I've certainly not seen anything here to change my opinion. MikeWazowski 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You claim that I used original research, but the AAC homepage makes the claim. You say that the claim is puffery, but I provided two sources to validate the claim made on this page. If I did not make the claim, but instead only provided the references to validate it, then it is not original research. I suggest you take another look at the original research policy to realize that the claim is not Unpublished synthesis of published material, because the claim came from this page. Kopf1988 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see where the two links from AnimeCons.com support the claim that it is the largest in NH. The first one is a search result, which is by nature a trivial mention. The second is the AnimeCons.com listing, which we've already established that while it may help prove some facts, it can't support subjective claims like "the largest in X."

The point is, you are trying to use primary sources, (i.e. the convention's own words,) to prove what the convention claims. By our policies, we need second-hand accounts from reliable sources.

Trust me when I say that I am not unsympathetic to what you are doing. But I really think that maybe you need to take a step back, and think about this. Do you maybe have a conflict of interest? Trust me, if it was my favorite convention up for AfD, I'd be upset too.

Look, if this ends up getting deleted, why don't you copy the page to a user subpage, and keep it until you can find some news coverage to back it up, ok? -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never been to this convention, or even in the state of New Hampshire, for that matter. My favorite convention is AnimeIowa. Furthermore, as for the references, these are the requirements to say that I have used original research:

* introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;

It is not being introduced, as it has already been claimed.

* defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;

Irrelevant here.

* introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or

Sources have been cited. One to make the claim, two to back it up.

* introduces an analysis, synthesis, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

I didn't come up with the claim, they did.

The two sources provided show that AAC's claim as the only/largest convention is true, by showing that it can not be so far proved false. Importantly, content must be verifiable, not necessarily verified. If I claimed that I was the only Computer Repair Company in the entire state of Iowa, and multiple phonebooks proved it, that would be good enough verification for wikipedia, right? Kopf1988 06:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I want to say 'keep' since it's notable as New Hampshire's (first?) only Anime con as far as I've been able to determine, but given the already-stated near-complete lack of supporting information about it from secondary sources. The only source I could find was Trancelab.com, but it says nothing about the convention other than it happened, and they took pictures. ~ SeanOrange 06:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The first convention in New Hampshire was Mikkakan in 2001. Mikkakan's wikipedia article was deleted last month. --PatrickD 13:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's really bizarre, to delete an article for (what appeared to be) such a significant convention in the area. Such deletions make it difficult to independently verify this sort of information, especially given how fickle the internet can be as a resource for something that people are no longer talking about... Another Anime Convention is still the largest/only New Hampshire con at this moment in time, and it's still ongoing. If these events don't warrant their own individual entries, perhaps we should find a way to merge them into an article about New Hampshire anime conventions, instead of just deleting them? Making the explicit connection to Anime Boston (if sources can be found to support the claim) might also be of some value. ~ SeanOrange 14:22, 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.

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

The result was speedy delete as edits by a banned user (CSD G5). - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu (Culture)

Hindu (Culture) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Despite its name, the article is just a POV fork/original research/personal essay created and edited by three suspected socks of Maleabroad (namely Summam, TypeEditor1 and Abcde0) after previous sustained attempts (by other socks of the user) to insert similar text in Hindu article were rejected (see for example). FYI, this blocked user has created similar POV fork articles before; see for example [7], [8]. Abecedare 03:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete as a POV fork --Apyule 13:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete and userfy, this fails WP:CITE at the very least, and as such has to be assumed to be WP:OR, but in theory the author may be able to salvage some of this for another article. The problem here is that the title is most certainly of an encyclopedic subject so redirect to Culture of India (which is where Hindu culture currently redirects as well). -Markeer 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. This is not the first time this tactic has been used via sockpuppets of Maleabroad, see also [9]. Gouranga(UK) 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I know that Hindu would deserve to have an article about its culture but considering it is POV and it is made by a sock, I opt for the delete. Maybe if someone can start up an article that makes more sense and more NPOV, it would be much better.--JForget 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, then recreate as a redirect to Culture of India as suggested by Markeer. Or just make it a redirect, I guess the text is already in the wiki database about a thousand times thanks to the revert warring this user indulges in. Orpheus 08:05, 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 08:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hank J. Wimbleton

Hank J. Wimbleton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As per the afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness Combat, Hank J. Wimbleton is a character in Madness Combat. Since Madness Combat was deleted and protected from recreation, it follows that Hank J. Wimbledon should likewise be deleted. Dugwiki 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason (characters in Madness Combat):

1337 Crew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dugwiki 22:59, 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, — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Pete.Hurd 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- per nomination. Are we reflecting on two articles here, or one? I feel both 1337 Crew and Hank J. Wimbleton should be deleted. Keesiewonder ^talk 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and I agree with above that both articles should be deleted. If the main article cannot survive AfD, it's child articles shouldn't either. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Aldux 21:35, 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 Redirect to Iraqi legislative election, December 2005. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:23Z

[edit] Furation-Human Rights

Furation-Human Rights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Political party which contested 2005 election in Iraq but no since then no info listed on how it did or if it is still functioning. Questionable notablity PrincessBrat 17:57, 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, — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, almost no attributable sources exist in English. According to the official results of the 2005 elections here they failed to win any seats on the national council (they may be active at the provincial level, they seem to be connected with Babil/Babylon). -- Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless this becomes more attributable. /Blaxthos 09:18, 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) 2007-03-18 08:24Z

[edit] Mermaid music

Mermaid music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a combination of original research (WP:OR and an advertisement WP:SPAM, neither of which is desirable. There isn't anything salvageable here that I can see. Crystallina 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It also is heavily not about mermaids, and so not about mermaid music. Goldfritha 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete spam. /Blaxthos 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Sounds like a school paper. Pax:Vobiscum 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it reads as though it was written by someone with no knowledge of what Wikipedia is not.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be an OR essay, not an encyclopedia entry. --Maelwys 13:37, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family Christian Center

Family Christian Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable church. Article was previously nominated in December 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Christian Center) when it was kept, based on the claims that it had been featured in "notable media" (except the only URL provided was for a Northwest Indiana local website which contained a brief article that was little more than an advertizing write-up, and nwi.com is not "notable media"). I don't see multiple, non-trivial references to this place.

The other reason was that we should "give the stub its time" even though it was 4 months old. Well now it's nearly 7 months, the stub has been given enough time and it is still less than 20 words long. Time to delete it. Saikokira 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, and I don't think this stub will ever be expanded. I also noticed that the article for the pastor of this church, Steve Munsey, appears to be a non-notable stub and probably should also be nominated for deletion. SkipSmith 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no progress, recentism made this appear more notable than it really is. /Blaxthos 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - you might want to nominate the pastor of this church's article as well.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Does anyone actually do research whilke they are "waiting" for an article to grow?? I found 2 Wall Street journal references and one in Time magazine in 5 minutes. I expeect that papers in the state where it is located would have ample coverage to write a longer article. Edison 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - passes WP:CHURCH (which despite rejection is still a help), and is sourced and has notability as a megachurch. JRG 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  No, it's not particularly helpful. WP:N handles this ably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  As AMIB says; perhaps it's time to stop beating that particular dead horse. At any rate, delete as nn, since article has no encyclopedic content. >Radiant< 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The 2 "references" added to the article after I nominated it are to print publications, are these available anywhere online? It would be useful to be able to confirm them, and to ensure these are not just passing references to the Center. If these references were so easy to find it would have been helpful to have added them after the previous AfD nomination, to address the earlier questions of notability. Saikokira 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep To quote from the article, "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" Cloveoil 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the first citation (Time) is of an article describing how they installed a Starbuck's in the church lobby. It's an odd form of notability and not one I'd care to claim, but it may work. I'm agnostic for now. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Although the references are weak, it seems to be noticed and with further research adequate references should be findable. Tag for references. --Kevin Murray 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be greatly expanded, however. Notability is not equal to "number of links on the Internet," and that was an odd argument for deletion. Links to other Websites is not a WP policy requirement in confering notability, AFAIK. A paragraph on the Starbucks is warranted, and clearly gives this church notability (and "notoriety" which I suspect is what some mean when they say "notability") since this is a rare and controversial phenomenon. - Nhprman 19:15, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Rubenstein

Glenn Rubenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity page for a probably non-notable journalist with a lot of unverifiable claims Vartan84 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • It seems that your initial suggestion that you should recuse yourself was the better thought. Go with your initial gut feeling. --Kevin Murray 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm very dubious about many of the claims. A Google News Archive search confirms that in 1994 he had a syndicated videogame column for the Examiner, and he was listed as a "contributor" at WIRED[10] as late as '99. It's rather interesting to be an underage newspaper columnist.[11] Oh, EW profiled him[12], which seems to tilt toward notability.-- Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unattributable claims (a lot of this seems pretty dubious to me). If we can't verify, it's gotta go. /Blaxthos 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Glen is a part of the history of LonelyGirl15. He's also a songwriter and has other achievements which make him worthy of Wikipedia. I think the move to delete is politically motivated. If the article needs fact-checking and cleaning up, then we can do it. I can clean up the poor writing in a matter of minutes. I am not personally a fan of Mr. Rubenstein and I support his firing from the ARG. Removing him from Wikipedia is a different matter entirely.24.7.78.127 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — 24.7.78.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Lol politically motivated? Wow that's a new one, so is he also like an elected official because that could make him notable. Also the creators of LG15 don't have their own wikipedia pages let alone the person who joined them later.Vartan84 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Unlike the other creators of LG15, Glenn has over a decade's worth of professional media experience and accomplishments. Everyone knows you don't care for Glenn, HyeMew (Vartan84). But this shameless attempt to mess with him shows just how juvenille (and jealous) you really are. I'm sure it pains you that you'll never get a chance to even smell Jessica Rose in person, yet Glenn has directed her many times. And JayHenry should watch what statements he makes when affiliating himself with LG15, because there has been no statement to date that says Glenn is no longer affiliated with the show.
      • Comment I'd like to know where you get off making such rash and imflammatory claims. I didn't even make this nomination out of some sort of "jealous" but after a group decision with many other people. It wasn't even my idea, but they got me to do it. For you to anonymously (despite clearly being the Glenn Rubenstein this very article is about) to lambast the nominator like this and to further threaten another LG15 fan and LGpedia admin is out of control. I can't even believe the vile your spewing here on your own page. It's downright embarassing. Vartan84 17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A simple Google search backs up the facts on many of these claims. That link to a game review? It's in the first issue of Wired. If you have the issue in your possession (which I do because it's a collector's item) he is listed on the masthead as a Contributing Editor). JayHenry and Vartan84 are two bitter fans of LonelyGirl15 who are thrilled that a writer and director for the show that they don't care for may have been removed from one of his duties. He is still employed by the show (and if you check, the post where it was announced that he was removed as PM of the ARG has been removed, so he may have been given back that job title as well). Being a teenage video game reviewer is a notable accomplishment, and it's clear that the subject of this article has had a long and varied professional career. And regarding what was written above, consistent month to month bylines on the same subject, under the same column title should be enough to warrant the columnist tag. The Entertainment Weekly article mentions many of his accomplishments as well, as does his appearance on the PBS show Computer Chronicles.VanillaThrice 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It appears that while not yet important, the subject has been noticed on the net and in multiple credible sources now shown in the reference section. Oddly few journalists receive much personal press and based on my experience at AfD, this subject has more recognition than others we have kept. Per BIO this is a borderline keeper. Contrary to JayHenry's assertions elsewhere this does not seem to create a precedent to lower the bar. --Kevin Murray 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After voting last night I've received several threats, off wikipedia, because of my vote. This is absolutely ridiculous and I want nothing to do with this. --JayHenry 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems obvious to me that this page was created, edited, maintained and now defended from deletion by the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE. Besides that simple fact, to hear that he is now making threats "off wikipedia" is unacceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.114.130.106 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — 85.114.130.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note. This is this user's first and only edit on Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. The sources establish notability. Also, the use of terms like "Vanity page" in a nomination is discouraged. -- Black Falcon 20:06, 19 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) 2007-03-18 08:27Z

[edit] Reverse-solarity

Reverse-solarity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:Reverse-solarity.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Reverse-solarity.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Looks at first sight to be a perpetual motion machine. Zero references. Zero related google hits. Prod was removed by the only author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a middle school student's science project. An electrical circuit with three power sources (solar panel and two batteries) and no load. I'll leave a message on the talk page - this is a Handle With Care case. Cbdorsett 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax/CoI. Looks like either a comedy attempt at a perpetual motion type machine or an attempt to coin a neologism for the function of solar panels. Either way, it's WP:NFT. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR or NFT. But concur with Cbdorsett about feedback to author about the process of invention. DMacks 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete as likely hoax, OR. /Blaxthos 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX/WP:COI and delete corresponding image file. Irene Ringworm 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 Speedy deleted per CSD A everything (A7, A12 for the start). Duja► 16:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dražen cerović

Dražen cerović (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sufficiently notable; article reads like a résumé or Who's Who entry Cbdorsett 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete after admin review -- current load shows a foreign language page with a copyright warning banner. /Blaxthos 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete now per WP:SNOW.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:47, 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 - Richard Cavell 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerard Cafesjian

Gerard Cafesjian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable businessman. Contested speedy. Denni^talk 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If he was the true owner of West Publishing, the article should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.52.82 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references which establish notability, but dealing with his philanthropy and his purchase of real estate. --Eastmain 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. His activities have been noteworthy, he had made major contributions to the Armenian Republic and for general philanthropic causes, and is named in the List of prominent Armenians. The Myotis 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 20:09, 19 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) 2007-03-18 08:30Z

[edit] Major Streets in Mobile

Major Streets in Mobile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with no reasoning by anon IP, relisted here for full WP:AFD. Non-notable article, wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminant list of information. Forever un-WP:ATTributable because of WP:N problems. /Blaxthos 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per original WP:PROD nominator, as full WP:AFD nominator. /Blaxthos 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SkipSmith 17:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Webb

Johnny Webb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with the rationale of "as, though an independant wrestler, he is indeed influential when it comes to hardcore wrestling", hopefully this will be free of similar arguments. Barely notable wrestler, worked a few independent promotions and has since worked Wrestling Society X which is basically cancelled by MTV. Notability is questionable at best, working a few shows for a short-lived promotion on MTV doesn't really meet WP:BIO in my opinion. However it's WP:A where this really falls down, there are no reliable sources that allow a proper encyclopedic article to be created. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This wrestler isn't notable. --Silverhand^Talk 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete WP:N /Blaxthos 09:31, 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. This has gone on long enough and has degenerated into an argument over WP:COI (the community is not a battleground). Editors do not have to explicitly state that they have no COI, and assuming that all editors arguing to delete an article have it is failure to assume good faith. Aside from all that, there's a near-unanimous consensus to delete here. --Coredesat 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot Bernstein

Eliot Bernstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Blatant autobiography of a guy involved in digital imaging and a lot of litigation. Is he actually notable? -- RHaworth 04:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this guy is notable, and he's made some effort in terms of sources etc following email discussions with me, but the style of this is about as POV as it could be, jimfbleak 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's just possible that Iviewit could be an article, but there are very few independent and reliable sources out there. Almost all of the information about the patent theft story comes from WP:COI sources. Even the sources in the article are things like this pdf of a 7-year-old industry article that doesn't mention the company at all, annotated with boxes making claims that this is the problem the company solved. If the sources existed -- CNet or John Dvorak or somebody writing "Iviewit solved the internet video problem!" -- they wouldn't have to do that. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per dhartung. /Blaxthos 09:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comments please take note that these seem to be changes that can made to change the article but are not reason to delete without the changes. The article referenced [http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/pr5.pdf this pdf is to show that prior to the inventions and even after while it was in filing stage, the problem was existent that video could not be streamed over low bandwidths without severe distortion. It is essential to understand what the inventions solved for, the other articles on the page have others explaining the "holy grail" discoveries such as, Grabbing The Holy Grail of Webcasting. Digital Webcast (August 2000), Stephen Schleicher. I think this editor who claims nobody has written this other than myself is wrong and should read all of the articles that were written.

The patent theft story I am more than happy to remove any reference and point the reader to external sources for that such as Iviewit. As that relates to Dingell forwarding to the Judiciary Committee and ongoing investigations of crimes against the United States & foreign nations, this is public information that should cause no problem as it is factual.

One also need to review the patent office suspensions that clearly show that the IP is under investigation and suspended pending investigations by federal authorities.

As to the statement that I am in a lot of litigation, I ask what exactly you are referring to, my company is in no litigation and I personally am not in litigation, is there something I do not know. I am involved in hosts of ongoing state, federal and international investigations which may prove later to turn into very serious litigations. Also, the art of patent is a litigious game but we are not quite at that point.

Again, I appreciate everyone's help and suggestions in getting this most pivotal invention story documented according to factual history. There are many more evidences of who invented the processes and verifications of such, such as strategic partnerships with industry leaders, licensing with contracts and for example http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/colter%20letter%20to%20Calkins.pdf that led to a signed license for use. There are many others but I cited three or four of them that while old they validate the inventions and the correct time frame. I have tried to leave the criminal elements and accusations from the article but will post a new edit of it in a while where I make some of the suggested changes. Iviewit 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wrote to the first editor (see below) and asked him to note any conflicts he may have with the story before acting as an editor due to the nature of the issue, not anything based on his advise. I noted he commented here without acknowledging if conflict exists and I would also ask any other editors to note if they have any similar conflicts before editing, this is to prevent any undisclosed conflicts upfront.

The suggestion is that you should wait until someone with no conflict of interest writes the article for you. -- RHaworth 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Per the Wikipedia guidlines

I responded

"This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, or that they are strictly forbidden. It is just that people tend to promote themselves, either clearly (like saying "I'm great") or more subtly (like not including important, verifiable negative incidents in their lives, or adding lots of unsourced positive incidents, or giving the negative incidents too little weight). Many people do not have the humility required to write a neutral article that sticks only to published information. Because of this, writing autobiographies is highly discouraged. If one wants to write an autobiography it is advisable to discuss it with the community and seek consensus first."

I had submitted for editing an entry on Iviewit initially and it was edited to become the biography Eliot Bernstein while we worked on the form of the initial Iviewit entry. This was worked on and submitted to the prior editor who made several key points we worked until it appeared neutral and to tell both about the inventions, the inventors and those who surrounded these most pivotal inventions to the digital imaging and video worlds. It is very difficult in this instance to have others get involved on a public basis to aid Iviewit in any way that could put themselves and their families in harms way, this must be considered in how the article is written and by whom. Further, it would appear that if you could core into your issues we could get to a mutual resolution as to how make it work under the allowable guidlines, under special circumstances.

I was unclear if your comments were to Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit or just Eliot Bernstein, if we could put the comments on each article that would be preferable to make the changes that way if no trouble to you.

Regarding the conflict of interest, as this is a sensitive subject under hosts of investigations, I politely ask if you have any conflicts with any of the people found on the homepage, ie law firms, lawyers, accountants, shareholders, etc. Or do you have any other interest in these matters other than from an unbiased editorial point of view? Sorry to ask but you can see by the proposed bill submitted to Senator Dianne Feinstein referenced in Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein, we have even asked the President or signatory on the bill to sign similar conflict waiver before undertaking the matters.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Iviewit 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us see what other editors think. -- RHaworth 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I think I'm the editor referred to above. I don't know enough about the technology to know if this article meets the notability guidelines, but it certainly not neutral and encyclopaedic in tone. "heralded as being such grail" "an amazing start" "in a miraculous fit," "Instead the system that was to protect them instead is on trial for attempting to steal them." jimfbleak 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks Jim! That was the kind of suggestion I was looking for. As you can see by the articles I did not herald it as the grail but rather others did. Either way I see that it could be considered not neutral and I can make those changes. By the way, where did the article go to make the changes. Thanks again. Iviewit 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth"

Iviewit 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reposted the article with changes to hopefully accomodate all. There are several reliable newspaper articles linked, sun sentinel, variety, and the others already mentioned. I have removed the statements that I thought were possibily interpreted as not neutral. Any other suggestions for changes. --Iviewit 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is so poorly written, it is unbelievable. You really want this representing you? This, imo, is one of the most difficult things about writing an article about yourself, you really cannot see how you presented yourself to the world. I will try to edit it down, and others can debate whether to keep or not. Please reconsider whether you want to write your own article on Wikipedia. If you are notable, you deserve much better than this, and leaving it up to regular Wikipedia editors will improve the article. It would be a hundred times better if you took a breath and took the time to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines about articles, because they have been crafted over the years to help writers producer useful and readable articles. KP Botany 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, I tried with the first 5 paragraphs or so. I don't know, because of the heavy usage of fluffed peacock terms that the artice can be rewritten accurately. I am concerned, also, about the unsourced comments related to the fraud accusations. It might be best left as a single paragraph or deleted. KP Botany 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you KP Botany! I made some minor changes for accuracy but I appreciate your help in editing out the non-neutral parts, etc. I agree it is very hard to do an auto but under the circumstances not many are willing to come forward yet to help me until the mess is cleared. I usually tell all those that attempt that it could be life threatening as it has been for me and others before. Heck, I am so stressed by all this but more so it is hard to even take the kids to school this morning without fearing the car will blow up again killing them and that makes most days harder to focus on things like this. Thus, when someone takes a moment to aid me in any way, especially in a public forum, I count my blessings and say THANK YOU!!! If I can ever be of service to you please do not hesitate to call me. I am writing a book, "The Fight for the Grail" [13] if you want to help me edit it... Also thank you again for your help and input Jimfbleak and all the other editors that have participated. --67.126.206.24 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask all those editors contributing to clarify before comment if they have any conflicts with these matters in anyway. Under Wikipedia guidlines, it would be an editor conflict I am worried about and it could easily and politely cleared with a simple statement of no conflict prior to comments. I have asked the initial editor to disclose and I got no response and further comments, this seems a bit odd. As for deleting the entry as an autobiography that is not a reason for deletion unless the article is biased. I have worked with editors to remove any elements of it and if you have a comment about that please be specific as to the reason in the article. Otherwise blanket deletes do nothing to improve the article to make it a viable autobio. --Iviewit 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless verifiable references regarding this person come forward during the AFD period. Press releases don't cut it for my concerns. At present, the article doesn't indicate notability as per WP:BIO. (And considering I've never heard of this person before, and came here after looking at a deletion review request regarding the company, no, I don't have a conflict.) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We can't really use press releases. for notability. And it's certainly possible to write non-biased articles that should still be deleted; if I wrote an article covering an argument I had a while ago with one of my teachers during high school and gave both sides, it'd be deleted. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The references are press releases? Geeze, I used to write press releases, the FIRST rule of a press release is you NEVER write anything negative. It's like using a television commercial as the source of factual information on something. Thanks, Veinor, for the wholesale deletion of extraneous information when I stopped with just a few paragraphs. KP Botany 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There were press releases and there are articles from reputable papers, if a press release is not allowed those will be removed, please advise as to the rule that is under. The other articles are newspaper articles from reputable papers. I do not know or never have heard of Tony Fox, thus he must not be an editor. As for press releases not being negative, many press releases are filled with factual information, like -- John Dingell forwarded the allegations of fraud to the House Judiciary Committee for review -- this comes from verifiable letters from Dingell's office to the Judiciary Committee. Press releases that the founders of Adelphia were implicated in crime are not positive or that Libby is going down or Gonsalvez but must be released for the facts for compliance. KP you are next in line after Tony Snow for + spin on the Bush admininstration. --LIBBY CONVICTED BUT GLASS HALF FULL AS MANY HAPPY PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON ARE HAPPY THEY WERE NOT-- Many press releases are negative so I wonder if there is a rule as to if + or - or no press releases are allowed, they were allowed by the PR Companies who also edit. I do appreciate Tony's comments and all others should not be relevant until they state if they have conflict with these matters. Thanks Tony. Come on folks, lets edit it to the rules, clear up any rule violations and let it stand as to the facts. If there are suggestions to make it acceptable under the rules, great. As for the TV commercial being factual, am I to take it that Lavitra does not cause drowsiness when the commercial states that fact or that cigarette smokes kills when TRUTH tells me the # of Americans dead or that Drunk Driving... The articles (misreferenced as Press Releases) already cited above were from newspapers printing articles independently on the technologies: Sun Sentinel, Variety, Digital Webcast, etc. I do not have a lot of time for nonsense editing in my life, what I see here are mostly comments that are wholly false as to the articles, claims that there are no factual references despite that several articles were written by top papers independently and verifying the technologies and the inventors. If the editors would read all the articles and then comment on the page, it would help this discussion. In fact, I am shocked that out of the several articles from reliable papers, the editors here appear to have only read certain articles and ignored the others, this seems like slighted editing in attempt to cause hurried opinions by editors in this forum. --69.229.114.20 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Who ever deleted the newspaper articles from reliable sources mentioned above please return them to the article as they are factual sources. Not sure who made those changes, who ever did that please state your reason for removing them and trying to call them press releases or put them back accordingly. so that they validate the claims.--Iviewit 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

KP - re eliot bernstein discussion you removed newspaper articles from verified sources such as Variety, Sun Sentinel, digital webcast all independent articles written by journalistic staff and cited them as press release which was not the case for much of what you removed. Also is there are a rule for press releases you can cite, say one that states no negative press releases. Removing the sources that verify the article I am sure was not your intent. Finally all of your edits should be put back until you state if you have any conflicts with these matters. I am suprised that you did not so state no conflict before making more edits, especially where you removed the articles from reliable sources and after repeated requests for disclosure. Also if you removed the childrens names, many bios have these and in fact the reference to Joshua contains valuable information regarding dating the inventions. --Iviewit 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Why are we removing factual information such as that Wayne Huizenga (billionaire Miami Dolphins, Blockbuster, Waste Management) made seed investment and who the strategic partners and other licensees were. Sounds like our editors are removing facts, what is the wikirule from the wikidecider on this. It is interesting that eiditors who refuse to admit or deny conflict when asked - bad wikimanners - who ask for reliable sources and facts are then removing news articles and other facts, whassabe?--Iviewit 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Let's put the original article back up until all editors disclose that they have no conflict and then perhaps we can begin according to the rules. "If it looks like a duck..."--Iviewit 05:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete KP Botany 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Nowhere in WP:COI does it dictate that all editors must disclose that they have a lack of conflict of interest. This discussion has proceeded entirely according to the rules so far. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, bias increases with questioning conflicts. There are rules for conflict both for an editor and contributor for a reason. What is editing if conflict exists? When asked if you have conflict, failure to disclose and increasing your rating to strong delete are indications that conflict exists. No conflict equals no problem in disclosure, all other actions to conceal conflict once requested is an indication of biased editing. All editors must adhere to conflict rules or else Wikipedia lacks any integrity. From the Wikirules A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors.

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest.[1] Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and you must always:

avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography. Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia. Editors who may have a conflict of interest This section of the guideline is aimed at editors who may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits are forbidden.

[edit] Declaring an interest Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion. Disclaimer: Wikipedia gives no advice about whether or how to use its pages to post personal details. This guideline will only raise some pros and cons.

Advantages:

By declaring an interest, you pre-empt anyone outing you or questioning your good faith. Most editors will appreciate your honesty. You lay the basis for requesting help in having others post material for you, and/or to audit/approve material you wish to post yourself. Disadvantages:

Your declaration may be invoked against you at some point. Your edits to the area in question may attract extra attention. Your declaration will give you no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics.[4] In the case of commercial editing (editing on behalf of a company):

a disclosure enables you to ask openly for help in getting material posted and edited, but once your position is known, you will have to adhere stringently to neutral edits of affected articles, or no edits at all. Note that if you only correct bias against your company and its interests, and not bias in its favour, your editing will be different from that of a regular Wikipedian, who would be expected to do both.

[edit] Defending interests In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.

[edit] Conflict of interest noticeboard A noticeboard for reporting and discussing incidents that require editors' intervention related to the application of conflict of interest guidelines is available at:

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

I am stunned that as editors of Wikipedia you all continue to fail to disclose if you are conflicted with the subject, that you are removing reliable sources to smear and entry and your degree of bias increases with each request for conflict disclosure. Maybe you don't have to disclose but if you don't you discredit Wikipedia as a reliable source of anything. Trying to delete the article by citing no sources, after removing newspaper publications is damning to the efforts this company has tried to establish. Lets elevate these matters.--69.229.114.20 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP thanks for the message of no conflict. No personal attacks were levied it was merely a request for that disclosure before further editing and like with Jim I look forward to working with you now to get this article in an unbiased light regarding important inventions of our times. Since the inventions are notable on a historical basis that have had major impact on our world I think that it is an absolute encyclopedia entry in substance.--Iviewit 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I suggest that the sooner this article is deleted and this editor sanctioned the sooner Wikipedians can get on with creating an encyclopedia. I do have a Conflict of Interest now, I am seriously personally biased against anyone at Wikipedia being further manipulated by this editor. KP Botany 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

KP are we resorting to personal editorial attacks? Have you asked for sanctions and on what grounds? Now that you have stated that you are conflicted, please remove your edits and further conflict and personal attacks do not seem to advance this discussion.--Iviewit 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Iviewit 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As you have stated you are conflicted please remove ALL of your edits from the article. Once you have done that, I will gladly do the same. KP Botany 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper articles cited in press releases No, cite the newspaper article, not the internal press release.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought: Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."

This is precisely what a press release is:

"A news release, press release or press statement is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something claimed as having news value."

If you disagree with the substance of my edits, please say so on the article's talk page, by explicitly stating why you think your edit version should stand and why mine shouldn't. But please do so without any personal attacks on me. Just because Wikipedia has a set of guidelines you disagree with doesn't mean that editors trying to follow those guidelines are doing so because they have a conflict of interest. I have no COI with your or this article. I don't know you, and I've never heard of you until this article, and it will not be a requirement of this article that every editor satisfy your personal requirements for editing. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and other editors know that this is the type of article I generally fight to keep, and work with other editors to produce a good article, namely small biographies. Making accusations against me isn't going to get you what you want, or appear to want, namely your article in Wikipedia. Working with other editors and learning Wikipedia's style and policy guidelines would be a much better tactic.

I did work with a hostile editor once and eventually, with a group of other editors, produced a top notch biography that recently went to good article status. I put up with personal accusations to get a good, well-written, factually acurate, nicely layed out, enjoyable to read article. But I won't do it again.

There are excellent guidelines available all over Wikipedia about how to write articles, but please start with WP:A.

KP Botany 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP again thanks for the conflict statement. On Eliot Bernstein article I did state that the three news paper articles you removed were in fact not press releases but articles written by the paper and unbiased news journalists and asked they be put back in. As for press releases if they are unusable we will delete. But then can we use the actual correspondence from Lowey and Dingell and cite those as links or whatever to the actual letters? I am not hostile but I did find other editors on that article and this one avoiding the conflict question and as you know now, there are some who never want the truth about these inventions to be told to the public. As for the other issues on Eliot Bernstein I would appreciate that for each deletion we discuss prior to change so that we reach agreement. --Iviewit 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As you are demanding I leave for COI reasons, please remove all of your edits from this article immediately, and I will be glad to follow your lead. KP Botany 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP I have stated my conflict for discussion and the reason that authoring such could endanger an authors life, since my and family's lives are already in grave danger... Your new conflict seems predicated on anger and spite for unknown reasons. You should not wait for others to make right actions before you do what is right for you. I did not demand you leave, you stated a conflict in a mean and hostile tone and that should be cause for recusal. --Iviewit 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My conflict arose purely because of the mean and hostile tone you took with me when you disagreed with my removing press releases from your article. When I made an edit you liked, I was a great editor. You are the one concerned about COIs, and you keep raising them. I suggest that the surest way to alleviate your concerns is to remove the biggest COI from the article: yourself. This is enough on the topic. KP Botany 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not assume hostile tone at you, I found removing articles from reliable sources citing them as as press release was wrong and asked for help in understanding your changes. I disputed your cliam that press release are positive and made a joke about tony snow. Your comments came with another editor who made reference to gay voting, any comments ion retort to that were not directed at you. When you denied conflict prior to stating conflict , I wrote to you that your comments could stand, at least to me, as you had stated no conflict, then seeing you change course I made my statements that you should recuse.--Iviewit 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)--Iviewit --Iviewit 20:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper articles cited in press releases

No, cite the newspaper article, not the internal press release.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought: Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."

This is precisely what a press release is:

"A news release, press release or press statement is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something claimed as having news value."

If you disagree with the substance of my edits, please say so on the article's talk page, by explicitly stating why you think your edit version should stand and why mine shouldn't. But please do so without any personal attacks on me. Just because Wikipedia has a set of guidelines you disagree with doesn't mean that editors trying to follow those guidelines are doing so because they have a conflict of interest. I have no COI with your or this article. I don't know you, and I've never heard of you until this article, and it will not be a requirement of this article that every editor satisfy your personal requirements for editing. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and other editors know that this is the type of article I generally fight to keep, and work with other editors to produce a good article, namely small biographies. Making accusations against me isn't going to get you what you want, or appear to want, namely your article in Wikipedia. Working with other editors and learning Wikipedia's style and policy guidelines would be a much better tactic.

I did work with a hostile editor once and eventually, with a group of other editors, produced a top notch biography that recently went to good article status. I put up with personal accusations to get a good, well-written, factually acurate, nicely layed out, enjoyable to read article. But I won't do it again.

There are excellent guidelines available all over Wikipedia about how to write articles, but please start with WP:A.

KP Botany 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) KP again thanks for the conflict statement. On Eliot Bernstein article I did state that the three news paper articles you removed were in fact not press releases but articles written by the paper and unbiased news journalists and asked they be put back in. As for press releases if they are unusable we will delete. But then can we use the actual correspondence from Lowey and Dingell and cite those as links or whatever to the actual letters? I am not hostile but I did find other editors on that article and this one avoiding the conflict question and as you know now, there are some who never want the truth about these inventions to be told to the public. As for the other issues on Eliot Bernstein I would appreciate that for each deletion we discuss prior to change so that we reach agreement. --Iviewit 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As you are demanding I leave for COI reasons, please remove all of your edits from this article immediately, and I will be glad to follow your lead. KP Botany 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

KP I have stated my conflict for discussion and the reason that authoring such could endanger an authors life, since my and family's lives are already in grave danger... Your new conflict seems predicated on anger and spite for unknown reasons. You should not wait for others to make right actions before you do what is right for you. I did not demand you leave, you stated a conflict in a mean and hostile tone and that should be cause for recusal. --Iviewit 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My conflict arose purely because of the mean and hostile tone you took with me when you disagreed with my removing press releases from your article. When I made an edit you liked, I was a great editor. You are the one concerned about COIs, and you keep raising them. I suggest that the surest way to alleviate your concerns is to remove the biggest COI from the article: yourself. This is enough on the topic. KP Botany 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not assume hostile tone at you, I found removing articles from reliable sources citing them as as press release was wrong and asked for help in understanding your changes. I disputed your cliam that press release are positive and made a joke about tony snow. Your comments came with another editor who made reference to gay voting, any comments ion retort to that were not directed at you. When you denied conflict prior to stating conflict , I wrote to you that your comments could stand, at least to me, as you had stated no conflict, then seeing you change course I made my statements that you should recuse.--Iviewit 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC) --Iviewit 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC) --Iviewit 20:22, 18 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 Ageless. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:32Z

[edit] Never grow old

Never grow old (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to be just some random nightclub or bar. No independent sources are provided to establish notability, and in my mind it hardly even makes a claim to notability. This seems somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phyrst which I nominated a while back. It was de-prodded with comment "contesting prod, as there aren't very many Finnish nightclubs on Wikipedia as it is, also added category Oulu." I disagree that there's anything inherently notable about nightclubs, and I disagree even more strongly that Finnish nightclubs should be accorded treatment any different from others, regardless of their representation on Wikipedia. Deranged bulbasaur 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete per WP:CORP /Blaxthos 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete No sources, lack of notability and the fact that it is just a bar makes this unworthy of wikipedia.

ANHL 10:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• If deleted, redirect to Ageless as possible search term? -- saberwyn 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Saberwyn as unattributed non-notable substub.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:01, 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) 2007-03-18 08:35Z

[edit] Advertising Cyprus

Advertising Cyprus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN, as per WP:WEB. Only 2 inward links at Google[14]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• I will edit the article more towards wikipedia's guidlines, I am new at this and I understand why I have been red flagged —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damcy (talk • contribs) 05:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

• Delete spam. /Blaxthos 09:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Real96 11:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal article Ok the article needs to be revamped however to remove my article with such malice is not justified—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damcy (talk

• Delete There's no pitchforks and torches here. It's not notable and it reads like spam. --Silverhand^Talk 18:17, 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 Redirect to Airwolf. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:35Z

[edit] Michael Coldsmith Briggs III

Michael Coldsmith Briggs III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an insufficiently notable fictional character. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging. Delete and then redirect to Airwolf. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete and redir to Airwolf. /Blaxthos 09:45, 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) 2007-03-18 08:36Z

[edit] Kris Kloss

Kris Kloss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable wrestling announcer, worked for the new cancelled Wrestling Society X on MTV which lasted a couple of months at best. No prospect of the article being expanded significantly beyond its current state One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Bret Ernst (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• delete both non-notable. /Blaxthos 09:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both Neither are notable. --Silverhand^Talk 18:19, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fetishes

List of fetishes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, and topic more than adequately covered by sexual fetishism. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Note the {{underconstruction}} tag and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncommon fetishes. The article is undergoing a merge. –Pomte 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Pomte. This is a good-faith effort to fix a problem article, give it some time. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the {{underconstruction}} tag has been there for over 2 weeks and I don't think it qualifies as a reason to speedy close a deletion debate any longer. Two weeks is sufficient time to bring an article up to standards to at least survive a deletion debate. I'm still undecided as to whether that is the case - it's kind of late and I'm not sure what to think of it - so I'm abstaining from a !vote right now. However I felt that the claim the article is under construction as a reason to terminate the discussion early no longer holds water. Arkyan 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete and redir to article that better covers the topic (sexual fetishism). /Blaxthos 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncommon fetishes. Take that as you wish. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I maybe mistaken, but isn't it against the rules to put the article up for deletion if it just had a debate about 2(?) weeks ago?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the relevant parts of the deletion policy state: "A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion." Also, "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept." It's already been brought up in a comment by Arkyan that after the older AFD was closed, the "under construction" template has lingered on the page without much growth in the article. So no, it doesn't seem to be against policy to renominate so soon, but we are treading close to the edge on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I have been trying to update and work on it, but lately I've been rather stressed out because of RL issues. I'm sorry if it doesn't grow super quick. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to sexual fetishism as mentioned above. I've given this a little bit of thought since my original comment, and while the hard work that has gone in to this particular list is appreciated, it appears that the topic is already well covered in the other article and there is no reason to duplicate. If there is any new information then merge it in, but otherwise just redirect it. Arkyan 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Arkyan. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no deadline to finishing articles and volunteer contributors on Wikipedia do have other obligations. Two weeks is really not that much time for such a big project. If the consensus is to redirect as a plausible search term, then please preserve the edit history so that this can be properly recreated and expanded in the future. -- Black Falcon 20:14, 19 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Leaders in Panzer General II

List of Leaders in Panzer General II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a player's manual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - the article author has clearly marked the article as under construction (with the {{underconstruction}} template), and the last edit to this article is only 6 days prior to this nomination. Furthermore, the main author of this article is also the main author of the "parent" article Panzer General II, which, according to the article's talk page, is also still in work. - NDCompuGeek 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And? The fact that it's new doesn't answer my objection -- that it's not the proper subject of a Wikipedia article. --Nlu (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete as part of the non-notable slew of fictional characters from one movie. /Blaxthos 09:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, this is from a game, not a movie.... You might be referring to others of Nlu's AFD campaigns. - NDCompuGeek 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as excessive level of detail of interest only to players of the game. This is not a brief overview that helps readers understand why the game is of interest (such material, if it were present, should be merged to the parent article about the game). Wikipedia is not a rulebook, a game manual, or GameFAQs. See the guidelines in the computer games WikiProject, or the analogous guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Barno 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see the game guide portion (which refers specifically to tutorials) in WP:NOT, but could you point me to the section that indicates Wikipedia could not include information similar to a game manual? It seems to me that if the information attributable, is not covered in the game's actual manual, and is useful to players of the game, then it does not fall under the "indiscriminate collection of knowledge" section. Is there something I'm not seeing here? Rwhealey 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I did write this article, so I'm a bit biased, but I think that this provides valuable infromation to a player of the game, and is not an attempt to be a game guide. The article is well-sourced, and uses a number of sources that were very difficult to find, out of reach of most players. I intend to expand the article as well as the main Panzer General II, hopefully explaining all the technical game terms. Furthermore, a google search for Leaders in Panzer General II returns 274,000 hits, while Leaders "Panzer General II" returns 729. These "leaders" were an important selling point for the game, and were even shown on back of the game's box. Rwhealey 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:FICT point 2, which allows "lists of minor character, concepts, and places" (paraphrased). Even if this article should not exist as a stand-alone list, it should be selectively merged into another list or into the main article (with less detail, of course). However, that's an editorial and content organisation issue which I won't bring up here. -- Black Falcon 20:22, 19 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 in light of new evidence. I honestly don't mean to "waste community time." Deranged bulbasaur 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonette

Dragonette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article begins by saying they're signed to Mercury UK, which seems to be heading in a notable direction, but then we have "Although no official material has been released yet..." basically admitting that they haven't yet done anything. Bands that haven't released any albums are about as notable as authors who haven't written any books or influential short stories. It says they've done a tour, which might be the article's salvation, but then admits that it involves "small venues." It certainly doesn't help that the only two sources are a myspace page and the band's first party website. That raises questions of attributability to go with the other problems. Deranged bulbasaur 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator (RS/ATT/N). /Blaxthos 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Normally I'm very wary of bands that haven't really done much, but they've had coverage in The Guardian, Eye Weekly and NOW Magazine, plus a review here. According to The Guardian they supported Duran Duran on a US tour, and there's enough independent source material to create a reasonable stub until more information is available. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per One Night In Hackney. Nominator should have done some research instead of passing them off as an "en-en band"-K@ngie^meep! 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not my job to do the research, it's the articles job to meet wikipedia guidelines. It still doesn't, because nobody has bothered to improve it. Deranged bulbasaur 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid it is your job. Poorly researched AfDs waste community time. Instead of nominating the article for deletion. why didn't you look for sources or add the {{primarysources}} tag? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as others have said.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:05, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headboard (band)

Headboard (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This has been tagged for clean-up, but there aren't any sources to clean it up with. Fails WP:MUSIC. Also, someone attempted to nominate this in October but it never got processed. Appears to be a vanity article created by a particular band member who has made a vanity article about himself as well. Vartan84 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment This nom for deletion is based on a grudge that Vartan84 has against a particular person. If you look at his history/talk page this appears to be his modus operandi in nominating articles for deletion. Tieran11 06:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Accusations of a grudge are unfounded- and I have only nominated the band and it's lead singer, as this person in question has been grooming and maintaining these pages for vanity puroses. This nomination was actually done on behalf of others in the first place, and the decision came after many hours of consultation and careful reflection. These many people decided such a nomination was necessary and asked me to do the nominating. Besides, even if it was a grudge, that doesn't make the pages in question any more keepable. Vartan84 16:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I am not a wikiexpert and thus will not vote, but whether this page should be deleted should be judged on its merits, not claims of grudges one way or another. Plus the above comment from Tieran11 appears to be just another incarnation of the 'particular person' at issue. --Insincerecovedwellerskibachatd 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the holy trinity: WP:A/WP:N/WP:MUSIC /Blaxthos
• Weak keep - some definite claims to notability if you read it, but no references, just a few external links.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Rubenstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozzykhan (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

• Delete. Nothing is sourced. Is any of it true? I would have no idea. --- RockMFR 05:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I recused myself from a semi-related AFD for Glenn Rubenstein, but there's no possible way to verify anything in this article. I think this totally fails WP:MUSIC. --JayHenry 17:19, 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 Redirect to Agriculture. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:38Z

[edit] Agricultural systems

Agricultural systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like school project, and is at least marginal original research. Delete and redirect to something -- although right now what it should redirect to escapes me. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For the lack of anything better, redirect to Agriculture. --Nlu (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and/or redir, if someone can propose a proper target. /Blaxthos 09:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment really does read like an essay.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Redirect to Sustainable agriculture possibly? - Ozzykhan 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, essay. No redirect please unless "agricultural system" is existing and used term. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 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 delete as a how-to guide, no verified information to merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preservation of banknotes

Preservation of banknotes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom, although without prejudice to an encyclopaedic article being written later. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - the article author has clearly marked the article as under construction (with the {{underconstruction}} template), and the last edit to this article is only 6 days prior to this nomination. - NDCompuGeek 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And? The fact that it's new doesn't mean that it is encyclopedic or will be. --Nlu (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete inappropriate content. /Blaxthos 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. I agree with User:David.Mestel in saying that if an encyclopedic article on the subject can be written then there is no problem with that, but this is just a how-to. Also agree with the nominator, {{underconstruction}} is not a valid reason to keep an article, particularly when what's being constructed is unencyclopedic. Arkyan 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Media preservation, making sure that everything is attributed to a reliable source. I don't think we need a how-to manual here, but document preservation is a reasonable topic for coverage. Historical societies, for example, spend a considerable amount of time preserving documents. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless article changes to reflect culture of money preservation or other encyclopedic content, then move to a more appropriate title.

How to type pages are clearly discussed under WP:NOT i kan reed 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The article is dealing with a conservation related subject, and probably needs a stub tag (and category) in that direction. At present is does not comply with style requirements, and is thus a weak article, but so are many stubs. Conservation techniques are clearly encyclopaedic, though this article is not one yet. Peterkingiron 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as Elkman suggested to make a stronger article. But if as a result of addition of further material it becomes too much to merge, just keep and clean up to make it a third-person encyclopedia article. Either way, the how-to aspects would make a great contribution to Wikibooks, and placing links in appropriate Wikipedia articles would help readers find it. Fg2 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, empty. Article about technologies and techniques used to conserve paper documents would be important and useful. (They are very diverse and very interesting.) Pavel Vozenilek 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Merge into Banknote#Paper money collecting as a hobby Media preservation as a separate section. The topic of "banknote preservation" is an encyclopedic one that should receive mention somewhere. Other editors can later incorporate it into the main body of the article. -- Black Falcon 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that the information is unsourced and the prose is not the best (in fact, my rewrite of the first paragraph may have made it worse), deletion is seems an attractive option. -- Black Falcon 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The existing information is minimal (and unsourced) and should be (merged, if you wish) in a "Preservation" section of the relevant banknote article unless it becomes evident that it is large or notable enough to require a separate article. Note that similar info on stamps is in a section of Stamp collecting (itself summarized in Stamps), with one of the tools described there being notable enough to have a small article of its own (stamp hinge), as opposed to a separate Preservation of stamps article. Media preservation is not a good merge target, as banknotes are not primarily information-carrying "media" so much as artifacts of value in themselves. Media preservation would get unwieldy if it had sections on preserving instances of this sort (such as stamps, comic books, for instance) - the article is concerned with preserving the information, which may entail copying, or transcribing from one medium to another, something usually frowned on by the issuers of banknotes! - David Oberst 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But, ... I just admire the quality of their work ... and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, .... right? . . . . . . . . . I have adjusted my comment in light of your excellent argument. -- Black Falcon 00:24, 20 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Vikings Groups

The Vikings Groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability made, and while it was still under construction, when an article utterly fails to assert notability... Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - the article author has clearly marked the article as under construction (with the {{underconstruction}} template), and the last edit to this article is only 5 days prior to this nomination. - NDCompuGeek 08:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And? This doesn't make the subject matter of the article ntoable. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete as seemingly non-notable. /Blaxthos 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment: There has been no editing after I added {{underconstruction}}. I have no interest in this article beyond a procedural issue:
  1. Guthroth placed the following statement on the page: "PAGE IN PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION PLEASE DO NOT EDIT OR DELETE - Guthroth 10:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)"
  2. Qxz removed the statement. His edit summary was "This is a wiki; submitted content may be edited or deleted at any time. You do not "own" pages."
  3. I added {{underconstruction}} because it reflects what Guthroth was trying to say.--Kevinkor2 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If the article was about the reenactment society itself, it would warrant being kept, but we already have an article The Vikings (reenactment). There is no warrant for having a list of local groups in Wikipaedia, as they are unlikely to be notable individually. This article is merely reproducing (in an inferior form) mateiral that is already on the website cited, and that is the best place for it. The author should ensure that main article has an adequate link to that website. Having done so, there will be no useful content in the article under discussion that is worth keeping. Peterkingiron 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I had hoped to expand the article into a history of each of the local groups listed. Some of them have been around a long time and IMO have a history worth recording. This has not been possible to do, so please delete the article and I will write individual histories as I get the information. Guthroth 15:27, 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, blank article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Green

Eleanor Green (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently notable movie character. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - the article author has clearly marked the article as under construction (with the {{underconstruction}} template), and the last edit to this article is only 3 days prior to this nomination. - NDCompuGeek 08:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And? This doesn't make the subject matter of the article notable. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But a common general of some long-dead emperor is? If this article is in your sphere of knowledge, then give the author a chance to fully flesh out the article. Otherwise, why be so hasty in weilding the "delete it because I say it's not notable" sword? - NDCompuGeek 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You think that generals are not notable (as dead and as ancient they might be)? --Nlu (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If fictional characters were within the scope of WP:CSD A7, this would be a speedy delete. It could still be a speedy under A1. As Nlu may know, I like to leave {{underconstruction}} tags on articles, and sometimes I forget to remove them. But this isn't so much under construction as never actually started. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 03:44, 19 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 Man of the Year (2006 film). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:40Z

[edit] Jack Menkan

Jack Menkan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently notable movie character. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - the article author has clearly marked the article as under construction (with the {{underconstruction}} template), and the last edit to this article is THE SAME DAY as this nomination. - NDCompuGeek 08:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And? This doesn't make the subject matter of the article notable. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete fictional character in a movie doesn't measure up to notability. /Blaxthos 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:12, 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 Merge to TSMC. (What, TSMC, a company with market cap USD 50 billion only has a puny stub?—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:42Z

[edit] WaferTech

WaferTech (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally a db corp case, but the article was improved and the speedy tag removed (validly, I think). There's some discussion on the talk page from when it was a contested speedy. That said, there's still no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Of the four references, the first is the company's official website, the second and third tangentially mention the company's power consumption, and the fourth is broken. Nothing about this company particularly stands out. It seems to be just a boring commodity semiconductor fab, with no particularly unique features. Deranged bulbasaur 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete nominator says it all. /Blaxthos 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Betaeleven 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article now has references. --Eastmain 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the NY Times link you've added doesn't really assert any notability for the company, just that it has been bought by another:

"Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing agreed yesterday to buy out some of its partners in WaferTech, a joint venture that operates a wafer plant in Camas, Wash. It will pay $350 million for a 23 percent stake belonging to the Altera Corporation, $60 million for a 4 percent stake belonging to Analog Devices and $40 million for a 2.7 percent stake belonging to Integrated Silicon Solutions. All three transactions should close this month, Taiwan Semiconductor said, giving it about 97 percent ownership of WaferTech." [15]

- Ozzykhan 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Possibly boring, but still notable according to the published references. If the current owner paid $350 million to buy out a partner who owned 23 percent of the company, that puts a total evaluation on the business of about $1.5 billion, which is fairly impressive. And I added an additional reference, Hoover's, at http://www.hoovers.com/wafertech/--ID__113377--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml --Eastmain 03:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm still not convinced that mentions of that kind establish independent notability. At most, that advocates for a slight merge into TSMC since, by the sound of it, they were never an autonomous operation and are now almost totally subsumed into Taiwan Semi. Deranged bulbasaur 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If you ask my suspicion I'd tell you that the only reason the plant hasn't been identified directly with its parent company is that associating with a foreign government tends to create negative brand implications in the domestic market. For an example, notice how British Petroleum refers to itself exclusively as "BP" in the U.S. Deranged bulbasaur 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I just don't think that the 3 sentences in NY Times asserts the notability of WaferTech. If anything, it is adding to the notability of TSCM (who now have a $1.5 billion subsid!). At most, the WaferTech information could be merged into the TSCM article, if infact it is one of their largest assets - Ozzykhan 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • The article also has several other external references. WaferTech is one of the largest corporations in Clark County, Washington and a significant presence in Silicon Forest. As far as affiliation with TSMC, maybe we could add "A TSMC Company" which shows up on their webpage. I will do some more research and add links/entries showing their interaction with the state of Washington. From what I understand, they are owned by TSMC and considered part of the family but are treated with some autonomy. Rms1 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Rms1

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universities and antisemitism

Universities and antisemitism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The opening sentence states: "There have been increasing reports of anti-Semitic incidents on university campuses across North America, Europe, and Australia." However, no citation is provided to substantiate this assertion. Instead, a variety of anecdotes are given. What the article does is attempt to tie these anecdotes together into a theme: namely, that many universities are hotbeds of antisemitism. Therefore, this article constitutes original research, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. From the titles of cited refs #2 (""The Rough Beast Returns") and 7 ("ADL: Antisemitic Incidents Soar in N. California"), and the second paragraph in cited ref 8 ("Over the past 20 months, many fronts have been opened in the Palestinian offensive against Israel. One of the most important has been on American college campuses."), it appears the lead assertion is not WP:OR. But regardless, this article appears to be about the events themselves, maybe limited to some recent timeframe. The article as a whole is not about the recent increase, so nom based on that seemingly minor poin being uncited is not valid. The overall theme of the page per its title appears to be supported by cited refs (talking about...well, antisemitism on college campuses and in academia) not just news reports of the events, so the collection of these events is not OR either. The article seems to be a bit vague about its scope (are we talking among students or among faculty, for example) and needs a better intro describing the topic before launching into examples...hardly a reason to delete the page though. From the history, it looks like this page was a splitoff of a larger one so perhaps some context and general discussion got left behind there? DMacks 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but article requires, nay demands, cleanup. This is an important topic, but this is a poorly sourced POV muckrake of an article that conflates opposition to the policies of Israel and anti-semitism. (Obviously they may at times overlap. But an encyclopedia article shouldn't do it deliberately.) There is simply no way that an article with the generic title "Universities and antisemitism" doesn't once mention the era of the Ivy League quota, for example. The quotes in the lead are deliberately provocative and make poor points (e.g. someone who conflates political rejection with antisemitism, someone else who is surprised that there are rumors about 9/11 -- or at least rumors that offend him). And what to make of sources that say things like, College students got some bad press last May with the release of a poll conducted by the Luntz Research Co. for the group Americans for Victory over Terrorism. "Only 16% believe Western culture is superior to Arab culture," the poll found, "but 79% do not." If true; it explains a lot about what’s happening on the campuses of America. (Did the poll even ask whether respondents did not entertain the idea that any one culture is superior?) The remainder seems to be a survey of some random incidents. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The criticisms you give above are pretty much the reason why I nominated the article; thanks for outlining these points so clearly. While "keep and cleanup" is an understandable viewpoint, the fact is that most such articles never do actually get cleaned up. This one is so bad it should be rewritten from scratch. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, this article is a terrible mess, compromised by presentism and weasel words such as 'incident'. At the moment it seems like an original research laundry list of anecdotes, often taken from taken from dodgy sources like the 'Jewish Federation of Northeast Pennsylvania'. A better version may be possible, but if it's not fixed in timely manner, it should be deleted.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• very strong delete this article is forever going to be a POV-target essay (from both sides, no doubt) that will always be a soapbox for original research and cries afoul. Wikipedia isn't the place. /Blaxthos 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per Nydas. See article talkpage; The authors do not appear to be interested in discussing the difference between opinion on the actions of Israel and anti-semitic rhetoric. If there was a parent article I would support a merge back. LessHeard vanU 13:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was started with the comment "created page with material moved from New anti-Semitism", matching this edit as a result of (I presume) this discussion about that parent article. DMacks 18:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge contents back to New anti-Semitism. Currently the article reads like a POV essay, and the title itself is very broad; a better title would be something along the lines of: Reported cases of anti-Semitism in Universities - Ozzykhan 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it is already from New anti-Semitism, or Merge back to New anti-Semitism if there is room over there. IZAK 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge as previous. Without more investigation, as to what else there is, I cannot say more. Personally, I am concerned at the politically-motivated academic boycotts of Israeli intellectuals, which should perhaps be discussed somewhere; may be they are. With a controversial subject, it is inevitable that the article will show a POV, but that is unobjectionble as long as the counter arguments (probably provided by another contributor) are allowed to appear. The title is unsatisfactory, but 'New Anti-semitism in universities' might be acceptable for what is presumably intended to be a sub-article of New anti-Semitism, of course with a link using a 'main' template in that article. Peterkingiron 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename appears to have some notability, but I think a better name would be Universities Known For Antisemitism or Universities Known To Be Antisemitic.--Sefringle 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because it includes references doesn't make it NPOV. It's horribly one-sided, and the very title implies that "universities are hotbeds of antisemitism" (re:nomination). Merge back into mother article at least. Lampman 16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep So long as there are sources that link the two ideas together this is notable and non-OR, and there is plenty of recent info that does so [16], [17], [18], etc. Joshdboz 19:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to e.g. List of antisemitic incidents at universities. The sources for this article show a series of individual incidents in particular universities in particular times and places. The article extrapolates from this list a phenomenon which it describes as a growing trend etc. There is no basis at all for describing a phenomenon or a trend, nothing sourced showing any comparison to a past or any overall summary. These parts of the article are pure original research and have to go. What's left is simply a list of incidents, and the article title should reflect this. Definitely would disagee with titles like Universities known to be anitsemetic or similar -- again, cannot extrapolate from individual incidents to claims about a way a university is known. Need to keep strictly to the facts here and avoid unsourced claims in order to justify keeping anything at all. --Shirahadasha 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Keep per additional sources found. Article still needs work, additional sources, more careful wording. --Shirahadasha 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per citations in article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not OR as can be seen from the sources used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. the article in The Age, which discusses a trend, discusses only Australia. Would like to see more articles from e.g. general news media discussing a global trend. --Shirahadasha 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Some additional sources: [19], [20], [21],[22] --Shirahadasha 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic collection of opinions and anecdotes, pure recentism (universities do exist for millennia), war zone. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Quickly. It's awful. The article puts forth the thesis that antisemitism is on the rise in universities in the western world. There is no reliable secondary source given to back up that assertion. What it does have is a bunch of anecdotes instead. There is one reliable secondary source mentioned amongst the references, the British Parlamentary Inquiry. What is worrying is that the article again just presents anecdotes culled from that report instead of conclusions. One suspects that whoever put this there engaged in cherry-picking evidence. Dr Zak 03:37, 19 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Junker

Guy Junker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. Write On 1983 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom/WP:N /Blaxthos 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  

• Keep It - He is a local celebrity and is therefore an important figure. It is these local figures that make each place different. We should celebrate them all. Hoorah for local radio celebrities that no one outside of a tiny little area has ever heard of. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - article, as is, fails to establish general notability guidelines. Luke! 18:39, 19 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) 2007-03-18 08:44Z

[edit] Palestinian propaganda

Palestinian propaganda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV policies. —Moondyne 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Even if (and I mean if) the topic is encyclopaedic, there's still nothing salvageable here. Hesperian 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:ATT. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Core policies are WP:A and WP:NPOV and this runs flagrantly afoul of both. Mwelch 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mwelch. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.123.120 (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
• delete /Blaxthos 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV essay. Nothing to save here. --Folantin 10:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork unsourced.--Sefringle 04:10, 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 Redirect to The Linux Link Tech Show. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:45Z

[edit] The Linux Link Tech Show's Past Guests

The Linux Link Tech Show's Past Guests (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is of interest to a very small group of people. If any of the appearances were especially notable for the show (or the people), describe at The Linux Link Tech Show article. Kevinsam 06:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete no hope of ever being appropriate content (WP:NOT a list, notability, etc). Cruft. /Blaxthos 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just too trivial. NawlinWiki 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps merge to The Linux Link Tech Show. --Keesiewonder ^talk 18:21, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:45Z

[edit] Steve Sohn

Steve Sohn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• deleteMarginal orphan article with little to suggest any importance or notariety Droliver 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO (he was never elected to office), WP:ATT. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. /Blaxthos 09:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. JFW | T@lk 00:05, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Foldès

Pierre Foldès (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

delete This is an extremely fringe person of little notariety to consider for inclusion. Some of the related surgical techniques are ok (but even they are so super tertiary multiple entries overdo things), but as far as I can tell there is nothing to distinguish this person within my field of surgery to be featured Droliver 07:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete i fail to see how this is properly attributed or how it asserts notability. /Blaxthos 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep an award winning book was written about his work, as well as a number of news articles, clearly meeting WP:BIO. However, they are generally French sources. Even so, his work is pioneering - he's not just doing boob jobs. Ciotog 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Lampman 16:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:ATT. The inventor himself may be only slightly notable, but I can't see how the relevant surgical information could be merged seamlessly with Female genital cutting, and the subject is encyclopedic. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 09:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article meets the attribution policy and the sources seem to establish notability. I'm not sure about notoriety, but in any case, that's not relevant to inclusion criteria. -- Black Falcon 22:00, 19 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. Prodego ^talk 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BookRags

BookRags was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-28. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookRags/2006-09-28.

BookRags (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Cavalcade of Wikispam

CONTINUOUS WIKISPAM. This time it appears a Wikiepdia editor, who previously only edited or contributed to articles in a narrow field of science, has taken it upon his or herself to champion inclusion of this spammy site which had been deleted repeatedly. The only references in the article presented by the editor are press releases and the about page, sources clearly not part of notability guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.123.120 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-14 07:42:21 (UTC)

• The article at this title has only been deleted once, not "repeatedly", and a good faith interpretation of the actions of Lethaniol (talk • contribs) is that xe is trying to create a good article on this subject from sources, but that xe has simply not chosen any independent sources, not being aware that one should employ independent sources. The question for AFD is whether any such sources exist. You have presented no evidence that you have actually looked to see whether this is the case. Your nomination is based solely upon the sources cited in the article. It is every editor's responsibility at AFD to do the research. This means looking for sources yourself, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. One editor in the last AFD discussion looked for sources xyrself, and cited an article about BookRags written in 2000 by Beth Bruno. Uncle G 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• This reason I have recreated this article is because I believe it is notable. A search for literature guides in google will bring out BookRags in the top 20 results [23], and Alexa data suggests that BookRags is continuing to move up the rankings [24]. Having said that reliable sources are required, and I need to work on that now (note I have been busy with other things, and when I have edited BookRags it has been to remove inappropriate comments). A criticism that has been leveled is that this is just a spammy site. I have seen no evidence of this, but even if this is the case, as long as the subject is notable then even if it does spam it should still have an article. Also note that one of the main reasons I became interested in BookRags is because it had easy and cheap paid access to published material, that I could not find elsewhere. I will add more soon. Cheers Lethaniol 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - in terms of my experience - my contributions and experience go well beyond science, including development of the articles Catch-22 and Waldorf Education, being the main developer of WP:ADOPT and current involvement in two ArbCom cases by mentoring involved parties - [25] and [26].
• Independent sources as mentioned there is the Q&A by Beth Bruno [27], also education institutions starting to use BookRags as an external link [28] and [29], news on development of Sonet Remixing [30], a comparison of online study guides [31]. Hmmm I admit these look a bit weak, but please note none of them are blogs or personal reviews - that is all the semi-notable links I can find. I will leave it up to others to decide whether it is enough. Cheers Lethaniol 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• It has been deleted many times, perhaps not under this name but under bookrags.com or bookrags Inc. I remember that, and I see nothing had changed. I am not sure if the site is "spammy" but I do know it had to be removed several times from various other sections for spamming Wikipedia. The sources above are not notable and at least one of them, the webknowhow.net article, is a reprint of a press release. There is no evidence that educational institutions are using Bookrags, merely a directory-style link from an Indiana department of Education website. And there is an interview with the founder from 2000. Sorry, this clearly does not meet notability guidelines. Seizer000 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - does the site meet WP:WEB? - Ozzykhan 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is certainly intended as spam on behalf of this company. This company is fairly unethical in its pay and its treatment of its workers; this is documented and was included in the entry, validating the page somewhat, and the fact that it was taken out confirms that the article only exists to promote BookRags. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. IP - 24.71.104.147

I suggest Anon IP you read WP:AGF carefully - this article IS NOT intended as spam. I wrote the article in good faith, but I do understand that it may not meet WP:WEB. How it treats it workers is irrelevant to whether it is notable enough. Note the reason why the info on it unethical pay was removed was because there was no source to back it up. Although this AFD may be closed with a delete, I suggest people disregard 24.71.104.147's comments, as they are clearly in bad faith. Cheers Lethaniol 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I disagree about bad faith of the article's originator, however in terms of WP:WEB it seems pretty cut and dry-- it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Sites like these are on the very edge and personally I think WP:WEB is the problem, not the site. If that ever changes, this site could be resubmitted but until then it does not meet the guidelines.Metrofeed 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[Metrofeed]

• Delete per User:Metrofeed - Ozzykhan 18:34, 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 wasspeedy'. `'mikka 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Correspondent"

"The Correspondent" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page name in wrong format - has quotation marks - probably an new user was experimenting Snowman 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per expieriment. /Blaxthos 09:05, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:47Z

[edit] Jimmy Carter's rabbit

Jimmy Carter's rabbit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Created to insert a bigger "controversy" about Jimmy Carter. There are alot of significant events in this biography but they don't get as much attention compared to what this person is giving regarding "Jimmy Carter's rabbit". ViriiK 09:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. wikipedia is not paper. It is not the topic's fault that the topic attracted a wikipedian. If we start discriminating by importance, wikipedia will be in big trouble `'mikka 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Nlu (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Move to a subpage under Jimmy Carter. /Blaxthos 09:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep If the article is NPOV and has sources I see no reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge to Jimmy Carter. It's a very minor incident, not enough to warrant an article. TJ Spyke 10:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the article is sourced and appears to be NPOV, but I do have to ask... does this event really mean anything for Jimmy Carter? Or for rabbits or related mammals? (If so, a merge would be appropriate). This appears to be dredged out a small series of news stories occuring in a very short space of time, with nothing appearing afterwards. The proposed Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline elaborates on how and why such articles can be inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename as the title isn't very accurate and suggests Carter owned said rabbit. Maybe something like Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. A noted event that was covered by media and has also been cited numerous times in pop culture. (Cited by Robert Anton Wilson, for example, in his lecture Secrets of Power). I don't really see this fitting into the main article. In addition, having reviewed the nominator's statement above, I feel a warning may be in order unless the nominator can prove the article was created with the intent to "create controversy"; otherwise I feel it's an unwarranted statement made against another editor which violates Wikipedia policy. 23skidoo 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but possible merge/renameIf the article is sourced and NPOV per Wiki guidelines I see no reason to delete - however there may be a case for renaming it per 23skidoo or moving to a Jimmy Carter incident subpage as suggested above. If per the nominator there are other incidents which deserve more attention, then if these could be identified a subpage could be created incorporating all such events, including this one. Addyboy 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and rename. Unquestionably notable; the event is still mentioned today.[32] NPOV problems with the article, if any, should be resolved by a tag and editing, rather than deletion. -- TedFrank 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename - I can understand the argument for a rename, but strongly believe tha tlike George W. Bush's pretzel, this is an event that captured the public imagination, and deserves an WP explanation. As creator, find it odd that nominator accuses me of being politically-motivated to attack Carter in the Jimmy Carter's rabbit AFD...then accuses me of being politically motivated in the George W. Bush's pretzel AFD they also started. Do I just hate everybody? :P Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back in to Jimmy Carter. The event may have been newsworth and the article may be NPOV and souced. Unlike, say, the Lewinsky scandal which was a major event and had lasting consequences for Bill Clinton there really isn't much to be said about the whole rabbit incident that cannot be accomplished with a small section in the parent article. All it really amounts to is a bit of presidential trivia. Arkyan 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename ideally. Failing that, then merge. I can see the merge argument given the somewhat trivial nature of the event, but the Jimmy Carter article is already pretty long, so my first choice would be to keep this one separate. Mwelch 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article could be expanded. There were many stories from the time of the incident to the present in sources such as the New York Times which no one has included yet, as well as a chapter in a book. Edison 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Carter article would be too long if this was merged there, and clearly it is a notable incident. Plus it has pictures! Nathanalex 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this thing almost killed the president. Nardman1 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename, notable, but I think it is too much of a side topic to merge into Jimmy Carter's article. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename and reword any non-NPOV parts of the article. Jules 12:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lampman 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Everyking 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable. Expand the article, don't delete it. JRG 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable as demonstrated above, continued expansion would be beneficial. Yamaguchi先生 05:51, 18 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, possibly merge; rename to 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident for now. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:49Z

[edit] George W. Bush's pretzel

George W. Bush's pretzel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Created to insert a bigger "controversy" about George W. Bush. There are alot of significant events in this biography but they don't get as much attention compared to what this person is giving regarding "George W. Bush's pretzel". ViriiK 09:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. wikipedia is not paper. It is not the topic's fault that the topic attracted a wikipedian. If we start discriminating by importance, wikipedia will be in big trouble `'mikka 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Nlu (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep As long as the article is NPOV and has sources I see no reason for deletion. Could be moved, merged and/or renamed, but that is a different discussion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge to George W. Bush. I had never even heard of this incident before, and at most it seems like 2 or 3 sentences is enough for the article. TJ Spyke 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the article is sourced and appears to be NPOV, but I do have to ask... does this event really mean anything for George W Bush? Or for Pretzels? This appears to be dredged out a small series of news stories occuring in a very short space of time, with nothing appearing afterwards. The proposed Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline elaborates on how and why such articles can be inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional. There is only one inbound wikilink to this article, a seealso in the president-rabbit article. A look at the talk page doesn't seem too hot on the inclusion of this event in the article, even as a wikilink. -- saberwyn 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not support the nominator's opinion that this was somehow created to increase controversy and feel the nom should be warned for casting unproven aspersions against other editors (unless there is proof this article was in fact created with the alleged intent). However unlike the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, the Bush-choking-on-pretzel event was a far less notable incident and one that has not really had the same pop culture impact. 23skidoo 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep I can see no good reasons to delete this, especially as it is already NPOV with some good references. --Apyule 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but possible merge/rename If the article is sourced and NPOV per Wiki guidelines I see no reason to delete - however there may be a case for renaming it or moving to a George Bush incident page. If per the nominator there are other incidents which deserve more attention, then if these could be identified a subpage could be created incorporating all such events, including this one. I also feel that unless some justification can be given for the accusation of stoking up controversy the nominator should be warned for assuming bad faith. Addyboy 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the incident drew a large amount of media attention/imagination making it a good idea for WP to have a concise collection of all the facts as a historical event...yet at the same time, it would be ridiculous to put three paragraphs on the incident in the actual George W. Bush article. As creator, find it odd that nominator accuses me of being politically-motivated to attack Carter in the Jimmy Carter's rabbit AFD...then accuses me of being politically motivated to attack Bush in the George W. Bush's pretzel AFD they also started. Do I just hate everybody? :PSherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back in to George W. Bush. The event may have been newsworthy and the article may be NPOV and sourced. Unlike the Lewinsky scandal, for example, which was a major event and had lasting consequences for Bill Clinton there really isn't much to be said about the whole pretzel choking thing that cannot be accomplished with a small section in the parent article. All it really amounts to is a bit of presidential trivia and some joke fodder. Arkyan 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Noteworthy incident, with numerous stories over an extended period, and has become a meme with respect to Bush's Presidenct as was the killer rabbit to Carter's. Several deletion arguments are of the "IDONTIKEIT" or "INEVERHEARDOFIT" variety and fail in the light of abundant covereage in reliable sources which satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT and even the proposed WP:NOTNEWS . Edison 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the newsworthy nature of the event which involved a U.S president.--JForget 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Of course its "newsworthy", its the President of the United States. If Air Force One lands somewhere or the president does something, its in the news. Seriously, CNN had a short report recently about the president's plane landing at Andrews AFB, its home base. Just because an article can be written about something doesn't necessarily mean it should. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep anything that almost kills a president is worthy of an article. Nardman1 01:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename or Merge, notable and referenced, but the article name seems a bit tacky. Possibly a merge into Bush's article or even a pretzel article. The article does need to be cleaned up though. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Chainsaw-Merge if you're feeling nice, Delete if you're feeling cranky. Not all "noteworthy incidents" need their own articles - we're not a news service (did Wikinews cover this? No? Why are we doing that, then?). I'd be more willing to keep this as a separate article if there were, say, a few books examining the controversy, media reaction and the implications to the world politics, and several media mentions depicting this specific incident in retrospect as "one of the lowest point of GWB's career", or something. You know, something that would give the picture that this had tons of impact or something and that every man, woman and child on this planet should give a darn. People have slight brushes with death all the time - if the guy had died on that, that would have probably been remarkable. This, however... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And if kept, please move it to 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (or whatever, just to get it a little bit closer to what the naming conventions dictate) and add it to WP:UA, as this is clearly something Britannica wouldn't ever cover. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with George W. Bush. I seriously don't think this is notable enough to have its own article, but perhaps its notable enough to put in the main GWB article. --Deskana (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lampman 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Everyking 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment According to the article, he didn't go to the hospital and it didn't affect his plans. I would hardly say "it nearly killed him." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not a reason for deletion. This was notable and interesting, and WP:NOT paper. JRG 02:58, 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. Prodego ^talk 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fantods

Fantods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

del transwikied dicdef. The article is nothing but dicdef (unreferenced, too) and a couple of usage quotations `'mikka 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A dicdef belongs on wiktionary, and this one is at wikt:Transwiki:Fantods. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:WINAD. The article does include some non-dictionary information, but it is currently unsourced and I have doubts as to whether the article could ever be expanded. -- Black Falcon 22:03, 19 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straphanger

Straphanger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Blatant dicdef, should be transferred to Wiktionary. There should be a page for Straphanger (film) created but this is unencyclopedic content Robbielatchford 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First AfD (Keep) which ended on February 18, 2007. --Oakshade 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the content is exactly a dictionary defintion. -- Whpq 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The 1st AfD for this (which result was decidedly "keep") ended less than a month ago and I find this AfD distruptive. I'll cut and paste exactly what I wrote in the first one - A real and encyclopedic topic. More important in places with crowded subway trains like New York. --Oakshade 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. This is referenced like a dicdef, it's constructed like a dicdef, and that's because it is a dicdef. I congratulate the editors involved on the excellent work, but well written dicdefs belong on Wiktionary, and at present there's no wikt:Straphanger. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncle G reminded me that even if transwikied, there's a place for a Straphanger page to disambiguate the various uses. So, even if this goes to Wiktionary, a page is still needed here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep well referenced concept, refers to the broader culture of mass-transit riders & more than just a dicdef. How is this up again 1 month after the previous AfD? Cornell Rockey 12:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't see this article as being well-referenced. The references provided were the word is used. -- Whpq 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is about a concept and, to a certain extent, a cultural image. It is not inherently a dicdef, and so does not fall under WP:WINAD. -- Black Falcon 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that this article is "a dictionary definition," I agree much more with those that argue that this is an important cultural phenomenon. I know that many public-transit citizens campaigns are called "Straphangers' Campaigns" or "Straphangers' Committees," another cultural phenomenon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjs56 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 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 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "helicopter girl"

The notability of this article's subject is extremely questionable, and that combined with the misused title, formatting and prose indicate a likely conflict of interest. — Lenoxus 09:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sarcasticidealist 11:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As above, this looks like a vanity page for the artist and the only reference is the myspace page. If the article is significantly rewritten and some independent sources are provided I'll reconsider. Dugwiki 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Per all of the above. Keesiewonder ^talk 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above.PierceG 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Aldux 19:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Apathy Per Leeroy Jenkins and nom.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:51Z

[edit] Montgomery County School District

Montgomery County School District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article contains no assertion of notability and no attribution Butseriouslyfolks 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. And there are literally thousands of similar articles on American school districts that could safely be left to a directory rather than an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 10:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• <pathetic whine>But where will we merge the unattributed and non-notable schools?</whine> -- saberwyn 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • They are all welcome here. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's uncivil, Saberwyn. You're better than that. Noroton 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As long as every U.S. numbered road and every British title of nobility and every pro athlete is inherently notable, then so is every school district. Edison 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nominated almost immediately after creation. Give it a chance to grow. Noroton 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

From the box on top of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

And in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" it says:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Noroton 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment On WP:POL, under "key policies", in bold, it says:

"Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles."

Also, on every edit screen, it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."

Thus, the very creation of an article which consists exclusively of unsourced assertions is a violation of WP policy. It makes no sense to assign to others the impossible task of proving that there are no sources that support the claims of an article. The article's proponents need to step up and edit the article until it passes muster.

Finally, I have no way of knowing whether anybody will ever come back to an article. If I don't tag it when I see it, it might stay that way indefinitely, and it may give others a negative view of WP. That is why we have policies and guidelines in the first place. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the article's creator just made your objection irrelevant. The article is sourced. As for "policies and guidelines in the first place", we have tags for lack of citations, which is a better course if that's your problem with an article. Noroton 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My objection is still relevant vis a vis your position, but as it is no longer relevant to the deletion question at issue here, I will not belabor the point. --Butseriouslyfolks

• Keep As governmental entities, school districts are inherently notable. Alansohn 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Montgomery County, Mississippi. Naconkantari 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a place to keep a bunch of notes on non notable schools. Vegaswikian 23:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - School districts, as government bodies, are inherently notable. TerriersFan 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the consensus that school districts are inherently notable, akin to small towns and villages, has not changed. Yamaguchi先生 05:48, 18 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winona Separate School District

Article fails to assert notability or cite any reliable sources. Butseriouslyfolks 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As long as every U.S. numbered road and every British title of nobility and every pro athlete is inherently notable, then so is every school district. Sources can doubtless be found to give statistical info. Edison 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep nominating an article for deletion 10 minutes after creation is not Wikipedia deletion policy. Noroton 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

From the box on top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

And in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" it says:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. Noroton 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment On WP:POL, under "key policies", in bold, it says:

"Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles."

Also, on every edit screen, it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."

Thus, the very creation of an article which consists exclusively of unsourced assertions is a violation of WP policy. It makes no sense to assign to others the impossible task of proving that there are no sources that support the claims of an article. The article's proponents need to step up and edit the article until it passes muster.

Finally, I have no way of knowing whether anybody will ever come back to an article. If I don't tag it when I see it, it might stay that way indefinitely, and it may give others a negative view of WP. That is why we have policies and guidelines in the first place. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And your objection has been made irrelevant by the creator who added footnotes. Noroton 03:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My objection is still relevant vis a vis your position, which is what I was responding to, but as it is no longer relevant to the deletion question at issue here, I will not belabor the point. --Butseriouslyfolks

• Strong Keep School districts, as primary governmental entities, are inherently notable. Expand the article as appropriate. Alansohn 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - School districts, as government bodies, are inherently notable. TerriersFan 00:09, 18 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:52Z

[edit] Canton Public School District (Mississippi)

Canton Public School District (Mississippi) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails to assert any notability or cite any reliable sources. Butseriouslyfolks 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Betaeleven 16:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As long as every U.S. numbered road and every British title of nobility and every pro athlete is inherently notable, then so is every school district. Sources can doubtless be found to give statistical info. Edison 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's bad to delete within a day or two after creation of the article. Give it time. If it doesn't expand I'd eventually favor merging it into Canton County. Noroton 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

From the box on top of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

And in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" it says:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Noroton 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment On WP:POL, under "key policies", in bold, it says:

"Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles."

Also, on every edit screen, it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."

Thus, the very creation of an article which consists exclusively of unsourced assertions is a violation of WP policy. It makes no sense to assign to others the impossible task of proving that there are no sources that support the claims of an article. The article's proponents need to step up and edit the article until it passes muster.

Finally, I have no way of knowing whether anybody will ever come back to an article. A day or two plus 5 days at AfD should be plenty of time. It can always be created in proper form later. On the other hand, if I don't tag it when I see it, it might stay that way indefinitely, and it may give others a negative view of WP. That is why we have policies and guidelines in the first place. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are footnotes now. So much for that objection. Noroton 03:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My objection is still relevant vis a vis your position, which is what I was responding to, but as it is no longer relevant to the deletion question at issue here, I will not belabor the point. --Butseriouslyfolks

• Strong Keep School districts, as primary governmental entities, are inherently notable. Expand the article as appropriate. Alansohn 03:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - School districts, as government bodies, are inherently notable. TerriersFan 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts are inherently notable, in the same way that small towns and villages are. They are also choice pages to merge short school articles into. Yamaguchi先生 05:45, 18 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) 2007-03-18 08:52Z

[edit] Grant Boyce

Grant Boyce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparent vanity Lenoxus 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Most of the 196 ghits relate to an Australian athlete. MER-C 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:A.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO, and also no sources couldbe found to verify any of teh information when gogling. -- Whpq 21:58, 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 Speedy delete Bubba hotep 10:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zach isoda

Zach isoda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Come on, does Sports Illustrated have voting for the number 1 athlte in Palatine (where?)? 6th grade? Hoax, surely. Emeraude 10:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Obvious. So tagged. MER-C 10:36, 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 Merge to Form of government. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 18:28Z

[edit] Political taxonomy

Political taxonomy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Made-up term that does not appear to be in wide use. 1400-ish Google Hits, most of which are obscure blog posts or Wikipedia copies. No sources or references in article. Lankiveil 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources or indication of usage - apparently made up. Frickeg 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm thinking that this is likely to be elsewhere on WP already, but its a legitimate topic. I'll add a citation from a Google Books search. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

hmm, looking now, I'd say redirect/merge with the "other empirical and conceptual problems" section of form of government. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I merged the info to form of government. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:11, 14 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) 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per Smmurphy. Looks like a "political taxonomy" is just a method of classification of forms of government. The source in the article (which you can see at Amazon) suggests that coming up with these classifications is or was a sub-field of political science. If someone wants to pad out the article in the future, the redirect can of course be undone. Pan Dan 17:56, 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. Bucketsofg 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of billionaires (2005)

List of billionaires (2005) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of billionaires (2004) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of billionaires (2006) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of billionaires (2007) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of billionaires (2007) 100-946 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of billionaires (2007) 101-946 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This (and related List of billionaires articles) appears to me to be a copyright violation of the Forbes magazine article. This is not publicly-available data but, rather, data that Forbes reporters compile. While it would be fair use to mention in individual BIO articles that a person is on the list, or to note the first few names on the list, to simply copy the entire list and add wikification strikes me as problematic. There's a reason you don't see AP simply reprint the list when it comes out in Forbes and why there isn't a Wikipedia page of the US News & World Report list of top colleges and law schools. TedFrank 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Copyvio. MER-C 10:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Facts aren't copyrightable, but lists such as this, where it took work to compile, may be (and is). --Ali'i 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: "This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are." -United States Supreme Court in the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). I believe Forbes has copyrighted these lists, and we are infringing upon their rights. --Ali'i 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And the Supreme Court in Feist went on to hold that an alphabetized white pages phone book was not a copyrightable compilation of facts, because neither the selection nor the arrangement of those facts were creative, and copyright does not protect the labor involved in making anything. A factual list of billionaires, arranged by the amount they are worth, is similarly not copyrightable. Forbes would have had to inject some creative decisionmaking into the list for it to qualify for copyright, i.e., "Forbes' list of billionaires ranked by coolness." Contrast also with the ultimately subjective (and therefore creative) editorial judgment involved in making the U.S. News & World Report school rankings: what factors to consider, how to weigh them, what statistics to include in the tables, etc. Postdlf 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all, not copyvio. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you figure? THEY researched all this info and compiled it. TJ Spyke 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of Copyvio, Wikipedia is not meant to be merely repeating primary sources. Nuttah68 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It should only have one article mentionning the list of billionnaires if one is necessary.--JForget 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All Reliable source of info. Effer 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Keep A list is not creative writing, but fruit of research which can be reprinted. In fact, the Associated Press does reprint it ([33], [34]), MSN reprinted it ([35]. Yahoo!reprinted it ([36]). A {{copyvio}} should be added instead so it may be research by the appropriate wikipedia users and not by us guessing if it is or not a copyright violation. --FateClub 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies -- I raised the possible copyvio issue, and I was told an AfD was the way to go. Now I know better to use a tag. -- TedFrank 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, however, the objection was the speedy deletion, copyvio was certainly not the issue "declined speedy... not copyvio, forbes is the source". This AfD is about the usefulness of this article, regardless of copyvio, which certainly does not apply to this article since it does not violate copyrights. --FateClub 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep all I don't think mentioning this list on Wikipedia is a copyvio. Nevertheless, {{copyvio}} should be added first. --Incman|वार्ता 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Re-write. A list of people who are billionares is something I can expect to find in an encyclopedia. This list however, like it or not, is a copy of the list from Forbes. Copyvio or no, it doesn't belong in it's current state. I say make it again from the ground up, using Forbes (and other sources) as a source for information and not as the source to be copied from verbatim --UsaSatsui 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, useful for research and reprinted. Whilding87 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Same rationale as FateClub. --wil osb 04:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - facts are not copyrighted. --TRFA 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Fact is not copyright, you are correct. Researching multiple facts and then collating them into a list based on a set of user defined criteria is Original Research and Copyright {eg maps are based on fact but the work in collating them makes them subject to copyright). As such Wikipedia should not be reproducing copyrighted original research under both WP:COPYVIO and WP:ATT. Nuttah68 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Same opinion than FateClub above. TCY 14:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All Relevant and not copyrighted. --Trigor 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a copyvio. - PoliticalJunkie 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - i think a really good summary of each year's list would be useful, but as they exist, they are litte more than copy/paste jobs.--emerson7 | Talk 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the current (2007) one - neither facts nor a mere aggregation of facts without any creative expression are copyrightable (but do keep in mind that IANAL), and the current one is without doubt encyclopaedic and deserving of inclusion. I have no opinion on whether the other ones should be kept or not, although I think that if they are deleted, it should be based on a lack of encyclopaedic value rather than a perceived copyright violation. -- Schneelocke 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the deletion forces in Wikipedia are out of control, in years to come this is a great resource
• Keep but modify - useful information, but add labor to existing list product by organizing according to different factors: e.g. by nation or state; industry, such as brewing/sprits, import/export, real property, etc.; or, with a bit more research, some other stimulating element, such as, perhaps, whether money was inherited, or, in the case where it belongs to, e.g., members of royalty, some sort of political classification. James Seneca 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but with weak delete of List of billionaires (2007) 101-946 The top 100 are good, but need context, but with 101-946... it gets a little too copy-paste-ish, trivial, and long. Danski14 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC), changed my mind, perhaps it could be merged if it does not become too long. I thought the others were TOP 100s for some reason, not complete lists. Danski14 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Very useful information, just needs to be worked on.--Joebengo 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• strong delete all. I understand it is very useful information, I like it a lot myself. But it does not belong to Wikipedia. Here are my points:

1. Did you ever wonder how Forbes get this list? They hire experts. Experts estimate people's wealth. Then Forbes averages up the estimates in an undisclosed way. What does it tell?
   1. This is not facts. Facts, in general, are not available on this matter. These are merely estimates. They are probably pretty accurate on people whose wealth is mostly in US stock market or those who have to file statements and live in developed democratic countries. What if a billionaire owns an undisclosed share of a private company? How much is that private company worth? How big is the billionaire's share of the company? 2%? 79%? You have already got two unknowns. How do you come up with an estimate? What if a billionaire lives in a corrupted country? All bets are off. You hire different experts, you get different estimates.
   2. Wealth of many in the list is pretty volatile. It depends on current oil and stock prices, currency exchange rates. This is another reason why results of this research (and, of course, this is not a scientific one) are not reproducible.
   3. I do NOT understand why people assume this is not a copyright violation. Forbes pay the experts. I have no doubt Forbes have the legal rights to the results. Hire your own experts and feel free to share your results with the world for nothing.
2. The fact that MSN or APN have reprinted the list is NOT an indicator that you can too. They all pay to many sources for the rights to use their information. You do not know about their contracts with Forbes, do you?
3. Finally, many of us, myself included, like it. So, what is the problem to look it up at MSN? Kulikovsky 03:57, 14 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) 11:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Everything in wikipedia is a result of the research of experts, here at wikipedia we do not create knowledge, we just put it together.
   1. No argument here
   2. Facts or estimates may be used here, and are very often used, if they are sourced.
   3. Because lists are not copyrightable because they are not creative writing (such as songs, scripts), and on the other hand you may say "Forbes said this about this person". Just imagine copyrighting "humans have 23 pairs of cromosomes" just because it took some research to come up with that figure. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, everything must have been made public prior to be posted on wikipedia.
2. Good point, but it was in response to the nominator's remark.
3. In that case why bother with any article, since everything in wikipedia may be found elsewhere.

Cheers, --FateClub 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as copyright violation. Forbes spent the money and time to come up with their estimates of people's wealth. This is not something like sports statistics that anyone can easily compile by themselves. TJ Spyke 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether "money and time" have been spent is completely irrelevant to whether something is covered by copyright. Postdlf 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• As long as the credits of the information presented is mentioned correctly there should be no problem... the acknowledgement is in itself adequate compensation since it is a free advertisement in itself that would rake in added revenues to the original publisher ! I personally feel copyright is so much bunk ! Is anyone holding a copyright on the Bible, Koran,Gita,Gurugranth saheb etc? or the laws of physics mathematics etc? Copyright is a concept totally contrary to the "Wikipedia philosophy" which is a open free information forum..... also a country like INDIA would be down in the dumps if we did not have free access to information in science & technology espically software !!

-Samir Pradhan-

• delete all unencyclopedic list. SYSS Mouse 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep it you pedantic shit. go find something useful to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.225.178.90 (talk • contribs).
  • Yeah. That argument will convince people. --UsaSatsui 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep , yeh it needs some work and sources , but keep it :) Ammar 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the love of God stop deleting useful articles. Xanucia 23:54, 18 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Trice

Michael Trice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN author. Fails WP:BIO, as listed win is not in a notable competition. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 11:46, 9 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) 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Can't find any sources on him or on his writings, which is what we'd need to write a verified article with this title. Article currently is unattributed. BTW it appears his wife is more notable than him (not to say there's enough to write an article on her either). Pan Dan 14:56, 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) 2007-03-18 08:53Z

[edit] Return of mahdi and iran

Return of mahdi and iran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It is original research, it is written as an essay and it's proselytizing. Lampman 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:NOT, WP:A and WP:NPOV.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete: mostly opinion. I don't see the seeds of a good article in there. Fordsfords 18:37, 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 Redirect to Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:54Z

[edit] Lego Star Wars II (DS version)

Lego Star Wars II (DS version) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Contested prod. MER-C 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy (which SHOULD be at "LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy"). TJ Spyke 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• What an awful article. Delete or redirect with a section explaining the differences on the main game page. Tim (Xevious) 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. There's already a paragraph there outining the differences. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no need to redir, it has no links. Reywas92^Talk 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this article reads more like a game guide than any article I've ever esen here. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic. --MaNeMeBasat 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I created it and I'm only a 9 year old kid. I'll just copy and paste it onto my own website then.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-18 08:54Z

[edit] Islam inside Hungarians

Islam inside Hungarians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fork of Islam in Hungary, no sources, appears POV David Underdown 11:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a POV fork. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated, and for apparent original research. Bemusing title, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect per WP:NOT, WP:A and WP:NPOV as unsourced non-NPOV essay.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously original research or opinion. Natalie 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Al-Bargit 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the nonsense. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Bizarre! --Folantin 08:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - eat your heart out, WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, indeed terminate with extreme prejudice. Biruitorul 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, total nonsense. Wacky title too. K. Lásztocska 05:05, 18 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melband

Melband (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert noteability seems somewhat confused as to what it is talking about. Geni 18:00, 10 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) 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't think it should be deleted at all. it is very public online collective of people in the music industry who discuss all manner of issues and events. the organisation is based on fact and the people in it are real. i'm confused as to what you're talking about geni. Are you bored or something? Victorpender 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Searching Google, I can see it's mentioned here and there, but the only reliable, external source I can find is this brief description[37]. Not enough to write an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - musician networking site local to Melbourne, Australia. This might have some local notability, but the article provides no sources, and searching doesn't generate anything either. -- Whpq 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are links to our actual web sites. this isn't finished yet. we are still adding to it. and wiki isn't limited to a geographical location. there are lots of articles of interest from all over the place. don't delete this. it means something to us even if not to you. i bet there's stuff you're interested in on wiki that doesn't have general appeal.Victorpender 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Websites of the article subject are generally considered to be primary sources, and are less likely to be "reliable" under the definition used in WP:ATT. If this musician's network is notable locally in Australia, please provide reliable secondary sources to that effect. You may also want to read WP:MUSIC to get an idea of what Wikipedians generally consider notable in this area. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless proof of notability per WP:MUSIC is provided. Also, in regard to the above, it is not necessarily that primary sources are less reliable, but rather that the notability guideline for musical groups requires at least two independent (i.e., secondary) sources. -- Black Falcon 22:12, 19 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 and redirect to Think Globally, Act Locally. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Feather

Frank Feather (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

We've had this around for a while. It's an autobiography, neutrality issues have never been addressed, claims to have coined a famous phrase are sourceable only to the subject, everyone else thinks it was David Brower. Nobody but the subject seems to be interested in this, and he's not going to fix it. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless the claims in the article are referenced. Otherwise, he's non-notable. The site he founded has an Alexa traffic rank of 1,736,661. His most recent book has an Amazon sales rank of 873,556. - PoliticalJunkie 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ++Arx Fortis 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone finds something, but I dont think there is anything to be found. DGG 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Maustrauser 22:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - he's been published by Simon&Schuster and has 9 other books to his name. - Richard Cavell 07:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Serious Revision What he's famous for isn't even his quote. That's the entire premise of the page. If you want to keep the page based on the books he wrote, then revise article to include mostly those. - Tyler Jarvis 01:28, 15 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) 11:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. User:Pan Dan's revision appears to have fulfilled the requirements of WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reduce and merge to Think Globally, Act Locally. I did what I could with it, but I am still not comfortable having this article here. Searches in news databases show that he is sought after for his opinion, but that no published writer has profiled him. The current content of the article is verified from snippets here and there. If nobody in the outside world has taken non-trivial note of him, so to speak, why should we do so here? This article was created by its subject; if he hadn't created it, probably no one else would have thought to do so. So I don't think we should keep the article. However, as source #3 in the article compares his claimed coinage of "thinking globally acting locally" with Think Globally, Act Locally, that might merit a mention in Think Globally, Act Locally. So reduce and merge. Pan Dan 13:11, 18 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. Daniel Bryant 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan Downes

Aidan Downes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This player does not fufil the criteria for notability as he has not played in a professional league (i.e. the top four divisions of English football Bigmike 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Scott Phelan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Stephen Connor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Darren Dennehy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Shaun Densmore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

James Hall (English footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ryan Harpur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jamie Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lee Molyneux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Scott Spencer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

John Paul Kissock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jack Rodwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jose Baxter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 12:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)